IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16337 of 2011(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SODARAN, S/O.KANNAN, 'SREEKRISHNANILAYAM', THAZHAMEL, ANCHAL.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. BEENA, W/O.SODARAN, 'SREEKRISHNANILAYAM', THAZHAMEL, ANCHAL.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.C.K.PRASAD SRI.T.S.ANURAJ SRI.K.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM RURAL, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691 306. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691 306. 5. AJITHKUMAR, 'SREEKRISHNANILAYAM', AGASTHYACODU, ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691 306. 6. A.KISHORE, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, 'ANJALI', KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506. R1 TO R4 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN R6 BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2011,ALONG WITH WPC NO. 17844 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.16337/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 24/01/2001 IN CMP NO.4018/01 IN OP.NO.2418/01. P2 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23/03/2010 FILED BY 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27/05/2011 BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. P4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 03/06/2011 FILED BY 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(A) COPY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S REGISTRATION CARD NO.10 A/SESC/09-10 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ROADS AND BRIDGES) PWD SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R5(B) COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SUDARMADEVI ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH VARKALA MUNICIPALITY. R5(C) COPY OF THE DETAILS ISSUED FROM THE R.T.O. PUNALUR, TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF KL-02 E/8038 TIPPER LORRY. R5(D) COPY OF THE DETAILS ISSUED FROM THE R.T.O. PUNALUR, TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF KL-02 E/8039 TIPPER LORRY. R5(E) COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.227/2011 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION. R5(F) COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL DATED 21/05/2001 IN CRIME NO.227/2011. R5(G) COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 25/03/2011 IN WP(C) NO.8310/2011. R5(H) COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 18/05/2010 IN WP(C) NO.14254/2010. R5(I) COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.960/2011 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION. R5(J) COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.932/2010 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION. R6(H) COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN C.C.NO.23/2000 DATED 27/10/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.16337 & 17844 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. W.P.(C) No.16337 of 2011 is filed seeking direction to respondents 1 to 4 to render police protection to the lives and properties of the petitioners therein. The 2nd petitioner therein is the second wife of the first petitioner. The 5th respondent is the son and the 6th respondent is the son-in- law of the first petitioner in his first marriage. The first wife of the 1st petitioner died in the year 2002. 2. The 5th respondent in W.P.(C) No.16337 of 2011 is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17844 of 2011. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16337 of 2011 are respondents 4 and 5 respectively. W.P.(C) No.17844 of 2011 is filed alleging harassment from the side of respondents 1 to 3 therein, who are police officers of Anchal police station in Kollam District. There the relief sought for is to restrain respondents 2 and 3 2 W.P.(C) No.s16337 & 17844 of 2011 from harassing petitioner, at the instance of respondents 4 and 5, in order to evict him from certain properties situated in Anchal Grama Panchayat. 3. It is evident that the parties on both sides are not on cordial terms. The 5th and 6th respondents in W.P(C) No.16337/2011 is making an allegation that first wife of the first petitioner was murdered by him and the first petitioner could manage to cremate the body, even without conducting Autopsy, against the medical advice received. It is further alleged by respondents 5 and 6 that the attempt of the 2nd petitioner (2nd wife) is to grab properties belonging to the 1st petitioner and with such a motive she is even arranging 'goondas' to manhandle respondents 5 and 6 as well as another brother of the 5th respondent. Both parties have raised allegations each other to the effect that, they were implicated as the accused in various criminal cases and they were convicted in certain matters. However, it is noticed that, the disputes relates to claim with respect to the properties belonging to the 1st petitioner as well as the first 3 W.P.(C) No.s16337 & 17844 of 2011 wife of the 1st petitioner. 4. Learned Government Pleader, on the basis of instructions received submitted that, the allegations in W.P.(C) No.16337 of 2011 that the respondents 5 and 6 therein are habitual offenders and that they are included in the 'rowdy list' of the local police stations, are not true and correct. It is submitted that neither the 5th respondent nor the 6th respondent are included in the 'rowdy list' of either Anchal or Kottarakara police stations. With respect to the allegations of police harassment raised in W.P.(C) No.17844 of 2011, learned Government Pleader submitted that, the respondents 2 and 3 in W.P(C) No.17844/2011 had only made an attempt to conciliate the dispute existing between the parties, that too only at the instance of the petitioners therein. Since amicable settlement could be arrived, the parties were advised to seek appropriate remedy from the civil court. 5. From the rival contentions raised by both sides, it is evident that there exists animosity between the parties 4 W.P.(C) No.s16337 & 17844 of 2011 based on a family disputes and claims for right to properties. The parties are at liberty to work out remedies in such disputes under common law before the competent civil court. However, from the allegations and counter allegations of either side, we are of the considered opinion that interference of police authorities could not be permitted in order to protect interest of any one of the parties or for settlement of the dispute. 6. However, it is to be considered that the parties on both sides are not entitle to take law into their own hands and to work out remedies through illegal or high-handed actions. Both sides are not entitle to create any threat or intimidation or physical assault on the opposite side. From the facts and circumstances we feel that, to maintain law and order situation and peaceful atmosphere, it is left open to the police authorities concerned to keep vigil on the situation and to see that no untoward incident happens. Needless to say that, if any complaint is received from either side about any cognizable offence, the police 5 W.P.(C) No.s16337 & 17844 of 2011 authorities should not hesitate to take appropriate steps in accordance with law and to protect the life of the parties in both the cases and for keeping law and order situation under control. Both the writ petitions are disposed of with the above observations and directions. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/