Dismissed

Muhammed Sali v. District Superintendent of Police and

Kerala HC6 Jun 2011WP(C)/12981/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a petitioner complaining of police harassment in a civil property dispute. The High Court noted the complaint but found no need for specific directions as the Government Pleader undertook non-interference by police in civil disputes.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd Respondent not to harass the petitioner was not specifically issued as the police undertook not to intervene in the civil dispute; petition dismissed.

Muhammed Sali Vs District Superintendent of Police and — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 12981 of 2011(W) ----------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-------------------------

¶8

MUHAMMED SALI, S/O ABDUL MAJEED, A.V.HOUSE, PUTHUSSERIMUKKU, KUDAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

---------------------------

¶12

1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-695 001

¶13

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.PIN- 695 605

¶14

3. SAUDABEEVI, J.S.MANDIRAM, MADANTHYAPACHA, KUDAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.695 304

¶15

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. PUSHPALATHA R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

2/-

-2-

WP(C)NO.12981/2011

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED 11/12/2009.

¶24

P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.19527/2010 DATED ITS 13/07/2010.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶26

R3(A) COPY OF THE ORDER CMP.NO.7977/09 DATED 17/12/2009.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶31

¶32

**W.P(C) No.12981 of 2011-W *******************************

¶33

Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2011

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

BASANT, J.

¶36

The petitioner has come to this Court complaining about the police harassment against him by the 2^nd respondent at the instance of the 3^rd respondent.

¶37

According to the petitioner, he is the owner in respect of an item of property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed executed by the daughter of the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner is thus in possession of that item of property. Respondent No.3 is unnecessarily causing obstruction to the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. The 3^rd respondent has a case that she had executed a document/gift deed conveying the property to her daughter. She has subsequently filed a suit to revoke the said gift deed. The daughter of the 3^rd respondent, according to the 3^rd respondent, has eloped with another person abandoning her children also. It is hence that she was constrained to revoke the gift deed. There are several disputes and proceedings between the 3^rd respondent and her daughter. Proceedings have been initiated by the 3^rd respondent against her daughter, ie. the assignor of the property under Ext.P1.

¶38

It is unnecessary for us to go into all those disputes. The short grievance of the petitioner is that the 2^nd respondent is

¶39

W.P(C) No.12981 of 2011-W 2

¶40

unnecessarily and illegally intervening in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. Succumbing to the influence of the 3^rd respondent, the 2^nd respondent is compelling and coercing the petitioner to yield to such unnecessary terms. The short prayer is that direction may now be issued to the 2^nd respondent not to harass and vex the petitioner at the instance of the 3^rd respondent.

¶41

The 3^rd respondent has entered appearance through a counsel. The learned counsel points out that the 3^rd respondent has been obliged to initiate proceedings against her daughter. According to the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner is only acting at the instance of her daughter. In these circumstances, no directions are liable to be issued, submits the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶42

The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that the police shall not intervene in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent or in the civil dispute between the 3^rd respondent and her daughter. It is for the parties to seek appropriate orders from the civil court. They must all scrupulously comply with the orders of the civil court and should not indulge in any crime. The 2^nd respondent

¶43

¶44

W.P(C) No.12981 of 2011-W

¶45

undertakes that if they do so, the police shall not intervene in the civil dispute between the parties, submits the learned Government Pleader.

¶46

We have considered all the relevant inputs. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that the 2^nd respondent shall not intervene in any civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent or between the 3^rd respondent and her daughter. Parties shall have to abide by the orders of the civil court and should not indulge in the commission of any crime. If so, the police shall not intervene in any manner, submits the learned Government Pleader.

¶47

We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 2^nd respondent. We are satisfied that no further and specific directions need be issued.

¶48

Accepting the submissions of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶49

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶50

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶51

rtr/

¶52

W.P(C) No.12981 of 2011-W 4

¶53

¶54

W.P(C) No.12981 of 2011-W

¶55

**R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.12981 of 2011-W *******************************

¶56

Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2011

¶57

ORDER

¶58

BASANT, J.

¶59

Heard. Admitted. The learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2. Issue notice to the 3^rd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is accordingly permitted to take out notice to respondent No.3 by special messenger.

¶60

Verify service and call again on 30.05.2011.

¶61

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶62

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶63

rtr/

¶64

W.P(C) No.12981 of 2011-W 6

Muhammed Sali v. District Superintendent of Police and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Sali v. District Superintendent of Police and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.N.Vijayan and Another Vs Union of India

Shaji Mathew Vs the S.I.of Police, Kurathikad

Gtl Infrastructure Limited Vs State of Kerala and Others

C.N.MUTHUKRISHNAN,H.NO.4029,BANGALORE Vs C.G.Babu,Chamakkad House,Palakkad

Rathidevi Vs Saradamma

Aseela Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Chadayamang