IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 23981 of 2010(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.A.KAMARUDHEEN, S/O.ABBAS, AGED 60 YEARS, ABBAS MANZIL, MANJAKKULAM, PALAKKAD 678 014. BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD-678001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAKKAD SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD-678001. 3. ARACKAL MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN MUSALIAR, ARAKKAL HOUSE, MANJAKKULAM, PALAKKAD 678013. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE & SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.23981 of 2010-W ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i. to issue a writ of mandamus any other writ or order direction commanding respondents 1 & 2 not to harass the petitioner or the committee members of Manjakkulam Pally Madrasa Committee and not to pressurize the petitioner to hand over the keys of the Jaram to the 3rd respondent or to execute any documents in favour of the 3rd respondent. ii. to issue a writ of mandamus any other writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 & 2 not to interfere with the civil dispute between the Manjakku7lam Pally Madrasa committee and the 3rd respondent.” 2. We heard the learned counsel for the parties including the learned Government Pleader. There is no dispute that a civil suit is filed and Ext.P1 is the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal filed by the respondents has been rejected. 3. We dispose of the writ petition directing that WPC 23981/2010 -2- the 2nd respondent shall not interfere in the civil dispute between the parties. However, we make it clear that, in case a complaint has been filed making out commission of any cognizable offence, this judgment shall not stand in the way of the 2nd respondent investigating the same in accordance with law. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS