IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7044 of 2011(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ABDUL AZEES,S/O.KOOTTAPPILAKKAL MOIDEEN, TEKKEN KUTTUR AMSOM,KANJIRAKKOL DESOM, TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MALAPPURAM. PIN- 675 051 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.PIN- 675 051 3. KUNATHIL DEVAYANI, W/O.EDAVAZHI PARAMBIL PARANGADAN, THALAKKAD AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.PIN- 675 013 R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R3 BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.7044/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.263/2008 OF THE TIRUR MUNSIFF COURT TIRUR DATED 30/09/2008. P2 COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.4166/2007 OF S.R.O. KODACAL DATED 12/12/2007. P3 COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.NO.2136/08IN O.S.NO.263/08 OF THE TIRUR MUNSIFF COURT TIRUR DATED 09/12/2008. P4 COPY OF THE I.A.NO.214/2011 IN O.S.NO.263/2008 OF THE TIRUR MUNSIFF COURT TIRUR DATED 06/01/2011. P5 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04/03/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.7044 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining about the police harassment directed against the petitioner at the instance of the influential third respondent. According to the petitioner, the third respondent had assigned her property to another person from whom the petitioner had purchased that property. There are civil disputes between the parties. The third respondent is prevailing upon the police to coerce the petitioner to yield to unreasonable demands. According to the petitioner, interference by the police is unjustified. The parties are before the civil court and it is for the parties to seek appropriate directions from the civil court. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner prays issue of directions under Article 226 against police harassment. 2. The third respondent has entered appearance through counsel. The third respondent submits that the WPC No.7044/2011 2 third respondent has succeeded in the civil proceedings. The third respondent has lodged a complaint before the police. No effective action has been taken by respondents 1 and 2. It is incorrect to say that the police officials are harassing the petitioner at the instance of the third respondent. Actually no proper action has been taken on the legitimate grievance raised by the third respondent in the complaint filed by her. Without prejudice to the rights of the third respondent to take appropriate action against the police officials who are not initiating any action against the petitioner, this proceedings may be closed, it is submitted. 3. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 and 2 submits that a complaint from the third respondent has been received, but as respondents 1 and 2 perceive the dispute as a civil dispute between the parties, no action has been taken by respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have no intention to intervene in the civil dispute between the parties to help either side. It is for the contestants to go before the civil court and seek appropriate directions. In WPC No.7044/2011 3 these circumstances, it is made clear that respondents 1 and 2 do not now intend to intervene in the civil dispute between the parties. 4. We are satisfied in these circumstances that no further directions need be issued in this writ petition. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 5. We are not persuaded to agree that any direction need be issued in favour of the third respondent in this writ petition. Suffice it to say that we want to make it clear that the right of the third respondent to seek redressel of her grievance against the police or the petitioner shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this writ petition. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above specific observations. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/