1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:02-11-2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN WP(MD)No.12081 of 2011 And MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 Periyamondi :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai District. 2.Chellappa :Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the first respondent from interfering with the civil dispute between the petitioner and secound respondent and his brothers, which is the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.424 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai and thereby not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of his lands comprised in S.No.28/2 and 28/4 in Elavankulam Village and S.No.11/2,3, 13/1, 14/3, 4, 6, 43/2,3, 23/4, 28/6, 40/1, 4/1, 1B, 6/5B, 28/5A, 48/2B2, 49/1,2, 28/5, 32/1, 4/4A in Thandalai Village and also properties in Kammalapatti Village in Vadipatti Taluk in Madurai District. For Petitioner :Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan For Respondent-1:Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss,Government Advocate. ORDER The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking a Mandamus to forbear the first respondent from interfering in a civil dispute between him and the second respondent. 2.Heard Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the first respondent. 3.The case of the petitioner is that he became the owner of the properties comprised in S.No.28/2 and 28/4 in Elavankulam Village and S.No.11/2,3, 13/1, 14/3, 4, 6, 43/2,3, 23/4, 28/6, 40/1, 4/1,1B, 6/5B, 28/5A, 48/2B2, 49/1,2, 28/5, 32/1, 4/4A in Thandalai Village and also properties in Kammalapatti Village in Vadipatti Taluk in Madurai District, by virtue of a registered Gift Settlement Deed executed by his father on 31.8.2009. The second respondent herein, who is the brother of the petitioner, filed a suit in O.S.No.424 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai, against the petitioner herein, seeking partition and separate possession of certain items of properties. The second respondent herein is the first plaintiff in the suit. The other plaintiffs are the brothers and sisters of the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein is the second defendant in the suit. Their father is arrayed as first defendant in the suit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.Contending that without prosecuting their suit for partition, the second respondent started using the first respondent police to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the properties aforesaid, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 5.Of late there has been an increase in these types of litigations. On the one hand, several writ petitions are being filed seeking police protection on the ground of title and/or possession. On the other hand, writ petitions are filed seeking a direction to the police not to interfere in a civil dispute. On another side, there is an increase in the number of petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a direction to the police to register a FIR on the complaints made and to investigate the same. There is very little realisation on the part of the litigants that it would be a mockery, if the same Court issues directions to the police to register FIRs in any and every case and also issues directions not to interfere in civil disputes. 6.Traditionally whenever any person attempted to interfere with another person's possession of a property, the aggrieved party used to take recourse to the appropriate Civil Court for a decree of injunction. If the latter happens to be a tenant or even an encroacher, the normal remedy that he would seek, would only be a permanent injunction restraining the former from dispossessing him, except by due process of law. Such a remedy which has always been taken recourse to, in the past several decades, appears to have been almost forgotten. While arguing that the police cannot interfere in a civil dispute, these persons forget that a Constitutional Court would not also interfere in a civil dispute. If any person seeks to use the police to achieve a civil remedy, the appropriate course of action is only to file a civil suit against such person and get an order of injunction. If an order of injunction is obtained against the real enemy, the same would actually bind the police as well as any other Government Authority. Apart from the fact that such an injunction against the rival claimants is binding upon the police, it would also enable persons in whose favour injunction is granted, to seek the protection of the very police against whom these writ petitions are filed. 7.Unfortunately, the remedies available before the Civil Court which are larger in nature, are now sought to be bye- passed by filing writ petitions. Bye-passing a Civil Court and coming to a writ Court, is as misconceived as bye-passing a Civil Court and going to a Police Station. Moreover, there is no absolute bar in certain cases, from resorting to both civil and criminal remedies. For instance, even while prosecuting a person for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the payee of the cheque is entitled to file a suit for recovery of the amount covered by the cheque. Similarly, a civil suit for declaring a registered Deed of Conveyance to be null and void on the ground of forgery, would not bar the lodging of a criminal complaint for the offence of forgery. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8.The fact that the civil and criminal proceedings can be pursued independently in appropriate cases, can never be denied. The findings recorded by a Civil Court on the same set of facts and evidence, would be on a different basis than the findings recorded by a Criminal Court. In Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah {2005 (4) SCC 370}, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court pointed out that the standard of proof required in a civil proceeding is different from the one required in a criminal proceeding. The Bench also pointed out that there is no statutory provision or any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other and that both cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. The said view was followed and reiterated by another Bench of the Supreme Court in Kissan Singh vs. Gurpal Singh {2010 (8) SCC 775}. 9.Therefore, a direction by a Writ Court to the Police not to interfere in a civil dispute, would virtually close the door for a parallel criminal proceeding, even in cases where such parallel proceeding is not prohibited by law. It is true that due to the enormous delay in the disposal of cases by Civil Courts, there is a tendency on the part of the litigants, to convert civil cases into criminal cases, so that an instantaneous solution to a problem is reached, with the threat of the stick. But such a trend can be and has to be arrested only by the aggrieved party going to the Civil Court, seeking an injunction to protect his personal and property rights. The solution does not lie in approaching the Writ Court. 10.As a matter of fact, the very same writ petitioner filed an earlier writ petition in W.P.No.11721 of 2011, seeking a Mandamus to direct the police to give protection for harvesting the crops standing on his land. That was on the basis of a decree obtained by the petitioner from a Civil Suit. 11.Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner should only move either an independent suit against his brothers who are now allegedly using the police force or alternatively, the petitioner can even move the very same Court in which O.S.No.424 of 2007 is pending. 12.In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the appropriate Civil Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai District. +1CC to Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan, Advocate. SR.No.37691. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.37822. RP/08.11.2011/3P/4C. W.P.(MD)No.12081 of 2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/