IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32404 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. A.M.VARGHESE, AGED 56, S/O MANI, 14/494/10, A.J.RESIDENCY, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., NANDAVANAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 033. 2. ROSELY VARGHESE, AGED 43, W/O A.M.VARGHESE, ROSE COTTAGE, T.C.14/494(13). DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASMA JABBAR, AGED 47, D/O ABDUL RAHMAN, SUMA MAHAL, A.J.APARTMENT, KAZHAKOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. USMAN KOYA, AGED 28, S/O ABDUL RAHMAN, DO. DO. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.32404 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are husband and wife. They submit, the first petitioner and his daughter are in possession of two flats owned by M/s Simi Movies Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. under a licence arrangement. At the relevant time, Dr.Abdul Jabbar was the Managing Director of that Company. Later, the petitioners herein entered into an agreement for purchase of those two flats. They claim, substantial amounts have already been paid in advance towards the price of the flats. While so, Dr.Abdul Jabbar died. The 3rd respondent claims, she is the second wife of the said person. The 4th respondent is her brother. Asserting right over the two flats, the said persons have come to the picture. They are threatening and harassing the petitioners. They are engaging muscle men to throw them out from the flat. Earlier, when the 3rd respondent and others tried to attack and kill the first petitioner, he moved this Court, seeking police protection. This Court after hearing both sides passed Exhibit P1 W.P.(C)No.32404/08 -2- interim order ordering protection to his life. Later, the said Writ Petition was disposed of by Exhibit P2 judgment, making that interim order absolute. Against the efforts made by respondents 3 and 4 for evicting the petitioners by use of force, they have already moved the civil court and obtained Exhibit P3 interim order injuncting them from trespassing into those flats or doing anything against the peaceful possession and enjoyment of them by the petitioners or commit any waste there. They are also injuncted from vacating the petitioners by use of force. But, undaunted by the said interim order, respondents 3 and 4 are continuing their illegal activities to evict the petitioner. So, he filed Exhibit P6 representation before the Sub Inspector of Police, Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. Two prayers are made in this Writ Petition. One is for implementing the judgment of this Court, Exhibit P2. The second prayer is to register a crime and investigate the case, against whom, the petitioners have filed petitions. 2. If the judgment of this Court is not respected by the police, the remedy of the petitioners is to move contempt application before this Court. There cannot be any further direction from this Court to the police to implement this Court's judgment. If, based on the information lodged by the petitioners, even when they disclose W.P.(C)No.32404/08 -3- cognizable offences, the Sub Inspector of Police is not registering a crime and investigating the same, the remedy of the petitioners lies in moving the superior Police Officer or moving the concerned criminal court under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008(1) KLT 724), this Court is not justified in issuing any direction as prayed for by the petitioner to register a crime and investigate the same. In view of the above position, no relief can be granted in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn