IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 36680 of 2009(D) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SHEENA, W/O SETHURAJ, AGED 41 YEARS, MANGALATHUVEEDU, NEAR JOLLYJUNCTION, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. S.I. OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION. 2. MANILAL, AKSHAJAM, DARSANA NAGAR 54, AYATHIL, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. LEENA W/O MANILAL, OF DO. DO. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL FOR R2 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 32292 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.36680 OF 2009 D PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS; EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(A) TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.4677 OF 2007 IN O.S.NO.731/2007. EXT.R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE EX PARTE INJUNCTION ORDER IN I.A.NO.4677 OF 2007. EXT.R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PROSECUTION PETITION. EXT.R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE. //True copy// PS to Judge K.M. JOSEPH & M. C. HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NOS.36680 OF 2009D & 32292 OF 2010 J ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th, November, 2010. JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Both these Writ Petitions being connected, they are disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. W.P.(C).No.36680/2009 is filed on the following allegations: Petitioner purchased six cents of property from one Mr. Balachandran, who is none other than the father-in-law of the second respondent and the father of the third respondent. Petitioner is in possession of that property on the date of sale and she has effected mutation in her name vide Ext.P1 tax receipt. WP(C).NOS.36680/09 & 32292/10 2 Second respondent has filed OS.No.731/07 on 17.10.2007 before the Munsiff Court, Kollam stating that the father-in-law of the second respondent is trying to alienate the property belonging to him and also trying to put boundary by encroaching into his property, vide Ext.P2 plaint. An interim order was passed vide Ext.P3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was not aware of the dispute between the second respondent and his father-in-law and under the guise of Exts.P2 and P3, the second respondent is threatening the petitioner and her husband and the second respondent has demolished the south-western boundary wall of the petitioner's property. Petitioner is residing away from the property. There is allegation of threat. Petitioner filed Ext.P4. 3. Petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction commanding or compelling the 1st respondent to provide adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner and her family WP(C).NOS.36680/09 & 32292/10 3 while enjoying the property mentioned in Ext.P1. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 1st respondent to take necessary legal action against the illegal acts of respondents 2 & 3 and their men.” 4. A Counter Affidavit is filed by respondents 2 and 3 producing Exts.R2(a) to R2(d). 5. The second and third respondents in W.P.(C). No.36680/2009 are the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.32292/2010. In the said Writ Petition also, the prayer is to grant protection to the life of the petitioners and their family from any kind of threat, obstruction and violation of the injunction order affecting peaceful life of the petitioners. Petitioners therein, inter alia, relied on Ext.P1 which is the injunction order. It is stated that while the injunction order was in force, the defendant in the said Suit who is the predecessor in interest of the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.36680/2009, namely Sheena, alienated the property in favour of the third respondent who is none other than the first petitioner in WP(C).NOS.36680/09 & 32292/10 4 the said Writ Petition. It is stated that for violation of the injunction order, a prosecution petition was filed under Order 39 Rule 2A. It is stated that the third respondent is causing obstruction and she filed a fake complaint and reference is made to the complaint in W.P.(C).No.36680/2009. The plaint is produced as Ext.P4. The complaint submitted before the police is produced as Ext.P5. It is stated, in fact, that as it is a civil dispute, the police has not taken any action. 6. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. We would think that in both these cases, the parties have got appropriate remedies before the civil court and the petition seeking police protection may not be appropriate. Accordingly, we dismiss the Writ Petitions, making it clear that this will be without prejudice to the right of the parties to seek appropriate remedies before the civil court and we also make it clear that we have not pronounced on the merits of the allegations WP(C).NOS.36680/09 & 32292/10 5 made by either of the parties and the civil court shall proceed to dispose of the matter untrammeled by anything contained in this Judgment. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE kbk. //True copy// PS to Judge