Dismissed

Treesa Michael v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jun 2015WP(C)/13952/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought police protection against her daughter and son in a property dispute that spawned two separate suits. The Court held police cannot interfere in civil disputes and dismissed the petition, allowing parties to approach the civil court.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition seeking police protection is dismissed, and parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court.

Treesa Michael Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2015/11TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 13952 of 2015 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

TREESA MICHAEL, AGED 80 YEARS "PUTHENVEETIL"(GEORGE BHAVAN), NEELESWARAMTHOPPU NEENDAKARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:-: ----------------------------

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶12

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA POLICE STATION, CHAVARA, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶13

4. MAGI BABU, MADAMMA THOPPU, NEENDAKARA, KARUNAGAPALLY KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶14

5. JONNSON MICHAEL, JELINA BHAVANAM, NEELESWARAM THOPPU, NEENDAKARA KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶15

R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADERSRI.C.R.SHYAMKUMAR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 13952 of 2015 (T)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE RATION CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 04.02.2015 IN IA NO.278/15 IN OS NO.70/15 OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 06.02.2015 IN IA NO.298/15 IN OS NO.79/15 OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 20.03.15 IN IA NO.278/15 IN OS NO.70/15 AND IA NO.298/15 IN OS NO.79/15 OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10.04.2015 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 18.04.2015 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J

¶26

W.P(C).No.13952 of 2015

¶27

Dated this the 1^st June, 2015 JUDGMENT

¶28

Shaffique, J .

¶29

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking police protection. It is inter alia contended that the petitioner is residing along with her youngest son, who is now abroad. Respondents 4 and 5 are daughter and son of the petitioner. It is stated that on account of unnecessary interference by respondents 4 and 5 in the matter relating to enjoyment of the property by the petitioner, she had already filed a suit as O.S.No.79/2015 before the Munsiff's Court, Karunagapally. Respondents 4 and 5 also filed another suit without disclosing the interim injunction as O.S.No.70/2015. Though the interim injunction applications were heard together as per order dated 20.3.20156, interim injunction was granted in favour of

¶30

¶31

WP(C).13952/15

¶32

the petitioner and the interim injunction application of the fourth respondent was

¶33

dismissed.

¶34

The petitioner submits that she is under threat of her life from respondents 4 and 5. Though complaint was given to the Police, no action is taken by the Police, hence, she has approached this Court seeking police protection.

¶35

Respondents 4 and 5 are represented by counsel, who submits that the fourth respondent is residing in a building, which the petitioner claims and that is the dispute between the parties.

¶36

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the parties are in conflict in respect of possession of a building in occupation of the fourth respondent.

¶37

Having regard to the nature of contentions urged, we are of the view that the Police cannot interfere in the civil dispute and resolve the matter. The parties are at

¶38

¶39

WP(C).13952/15

¶40

liberty to approach the Civil Court for appropriate directions. The Police can interfere only if there is any law and order situation.

¶41

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, we only observe that if any offence is committed or there is attempt to commit offence, on the complaint of the petitioner, the Police shall look into the matter and do the needful. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶42

ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE

¶43

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

vgs2/6/15

Treesa Michael v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Treesa Michael v. State of Kerala

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

State of Kerala Vs Komalavally

Abdul Kharim.a. Vs the Registrar, University of Kerala & or

Santhosh M.S. Vs State of Kerala

M/S.K.Ravindran Vs Member Secretary, Kerala State Rural Roads Development

Shamil Krishnan.C.K Vs Dineshan Cheranath

State of Kerala Vs Dr. A.K.B. Sadbhavana Mission Trust