IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20378 of 2008(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. A.JOHN JUSTIN RAJAMANI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, 9 ROOMS LINE, NEAR R.C.CHURCH, MUNNAR, DIST.IDUKKI. 2. ELIZABATH RAJAMANI, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.JOHN JUSTIN RAJAMANI, 9 ROOMS LINE, NEAR R.C.CHURCH, MUNNAR, DIST.IDUKKI. 3. JUSTIN SYLAS, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.JOHN JUSTIN RAJAMANI, 9 ROOMS LINE, NEAR R.C.CHURCH, MUNNAR, DIST.IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SASI, S/O.LATE PALRAJ, BUILDING NO. M.G.P.IX/1336 (OLD) MUNNAR SETTLEMENT COLONY, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. SURESH, S/O.SASI, BUILDING NO. M.G.P.IX/1336 (OLD) MUNNAR SETTLEMENT COLONY, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. PHILOMINA, W/O.SASI, BUILDING NO. M.G.P.IX/1336 (OLD) MUNNAR SETTLEMENT COLONY, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. BINU PAPPACHAN, CABLE OPERATOR, S/O.PAPPACHAN, MUNNAR NEW COLONY, MUNNAR, DIST.IDUKKI. Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.20378/2008 A 5. LENIN, CABLE OPERATOR, S/O.GILLY, MUNNAR NEW COLONY, MUNNAR, DIST.IDUKKI. 6. VIJAY, CABLE OPERATOR, S/O.SAROJA, MUNNAR NEW COLONY, MUNNAR, DIST.IDUKKI. 7. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNNAR POLICE STATION, MUNNAR, DIST.IDUKKI. 8. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNNAR, DIST. IDUKKI. 9. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUNNAR, DIST. IDUKKI. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL -R7,R8 &R9 ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE FOR R1 TO 6 SRI.T.K.BIJU FOR R1 TO 6 SRI.MATHEW SEBASTIAN FOR R1 TO 6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20378/2008 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 16/06/08 IN O.S.142/08 OF STATUS QUO. EXT.P2: COPY OF COMMISSIONER REPORT DTD. 27/06/08 IN O.S.142/08. EXT.P3: COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED TO PANCHAYATH. EXT.P4: COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 20/06/08 ISSUED BY PANCHAYATH. EXT.P5: COPY OF DISCHARGE CARD ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF DISCHARGE CARD ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF DISCHARGE CARD ISSUED TO 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF FIR VIDE CRIME NO.251/08. EXT.P9: COPY OF FIR VIDE CRIME NO.253/08. EXT.P10: COPY OF PETITION DTD. 4/07/08 SUBMITTED TO POLICE. EXT.P11 SERIES:COPIES OF DISCHARGE CARDS VIDE I.P.NOS.1635,1936. EXT.P12: COPY OF FIR VIDE CRIM E NO.185/08. EXT.P13 SERIES: COPIES OF DISCHARGE CARDS FROM SUSHRUSHAH HOSPITALS. EXT.P14: COPY OF PETITION DTD. 19/07/08. EXT.P15: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 15/07/08 IN WP(C) 19990/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A): COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD. 19/04/2007 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE SECRETARY, MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT DTD. 19/04/2007. EXT.R1(B): COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 20/04/2007 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONERS. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 20378 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JULY 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioners 1 and 2 are husband and wife. The third petitioner is their son. The first petitioner is a retired Headmaster and they were leading a peaceful life. The third petitioner owns five cents of land comprised in Survey No.917/1 of K.D.H.Village in Devikulam Taluk. He has constructed a building there. The first respondent owns an adjacent plot of land having an extent of five cents in the very same survey number. He was residing there in the building constructed by him. Recently he started construction of a separate building in his remaining land at the eastern side between the buildings belonging to him and the third petitioner. It is submitted that the construction is made abutting the boundary of the third petitioner. To prevent any legal action from the part of the WPC. 20378/2008 -2- petitioners against construction, the first respondent moved the civil court and obtained an ex parte order of status quo. On the strength of the status quo order, the first respondent proceeded with the construction. On the motion made by the third petitioner, the civil court in the suit filed by the first respondent appointed a commissioner to inspect the property and file a report. When the commissioner visited the property, the party respondents herein caused obstruction and manhandled the petitioners. They have filed a complaint before the police. The police, strangely, have registered a crime on the basis of the information lodged by the party respondents against the petitioners. The complaint filed by the petitioners has been taken as the basis for registering a counter case against the party respondents. 2. The petitioners apprehend threat to their life from the part of the party respondents. So, they have filed a petition before the police. Alleging that the police did not take any effective action, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate reliefs. The petitioners also have a case that there was WPC. 20378/2008 -3- subsequent attack on them by the party respondents. The party respondents have also come to the shop run by the petitioners and created problem there. The girl working in that shop was also threatened, it is alleged. 3. Respondents 1 to 6 have filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations against them. They pointed out that based on the information lodged by them, a crime has been registered against the petitioners. 4. The police have filed a statement as directed by this Court in which it is stated that the petitioners have closed a pathway, which was being used by the general public. The same is the root cause of the problem. The petitioners, in answer, would submit that the allegations made against them are unfounded and the crime registered against them is also based on false information. This will be evident from the statement in the crime registered against them. As per the F.I. statement it was the petitioners who attacked the party respondents. But in the counter affidavit it is stated that musclemen were employed by the petitioners to attack the party respondents. WPC. 20378/2008 -4- We heard the learned counsel on both sides. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and counter allegations, we feel that the petitioners have to move the competent civil court or the criminal court to redress their grievance. But needless to say, if any information regarding cognizable offence is reported, the police shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.