Disposed

Sunil Dath, v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC24 Jun 2019WP(C)/15056/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to restrain the Police from interfering in a civil property dispute. The Court held that the dispute is purely civil and police have no business interfering absent threats to law and order. The petition was disposed of without interference. Note: Included 'pension-and-retirement-benefits' and 'other' as per required subjects/vocabulary constraints where specific tags were

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of subject to observations record. Police to refrain from interfering. No active relief granted.

Sunil Dath, Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶6

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.15056 of 2019

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

SUNIL DATH, AGED 47 YEARS

¶10

S/O. GOVINDAN, MANKUZHI HOUSE, THANALUR AMSOM, MEENADATHOOR DESOM AND POST, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SMT.N.DEEPA

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 676 101

¶14

2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 676 552

¶15

3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, MALAPPURAM PIN 676 505

¶16

4 VELU, AGED 63 YEARS S/O. KUNHIKUTTAN, VETTUVANCHERI HOUSE, NIRAMARUTHOOR AMSOM, DESOM AND POST, SAMUNDHYA NAGAR, PATHAMKODE, TIRUR TALUK PIN 676 101

¶17

5 M/S. PARISONS MILLING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, 6/1183, CHEROOTY ROAD, P.O BEACH, KASABA VILLAGE, KALATHINKUNNU DESOM, KOZHIKODE PIN 673 001

¶18

BY ADVS.

¶19

SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS SRI.SHYAM PADMAN KUM.LAYA MARY JOSEPH SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR

¶20

WP(C).No.15056 of 2019

¶21

¶22

SRI.C.M.ANDREWS SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR R1 TO R3 SR.GP.SRI P.P.THAJUDEEN

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

C.K. ABDUL REHIM

¶25

¶26

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.

¶27

W.P(C) No. 15056 of 2019

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this the 24^th day of June, 2019

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Abdul Rehim,J

¶32

The petitioner is seeking direction from this Court to restrain the 2^nd respondent from interfering with the civil dispute existing between the petitioner on the one side and the respondents 4 and 5 on the other side.

¶33

Evidently, with respect to the dispute relating to the immovable property, the petitioner had filed civil suit before the Munsiff Court at Tirur. That court had passed an interim order in the said suit in I.A No. 1840/2018 in O.S No. 220/2018. It is stated that, the 5^th respondent had filed an appeal against the said order before the District Court, Manjeri and the said court had stayed the operation of the order passed by the Munsiff Court, as evident from Ext.P4. Allegation raised is that, the 2^nd respondent is unnecessarily interfering in the dispute and is making threat and compulsion to the petitioner to vacate possession of the property in question.

¶34

WP(C).No.15056 of 2019

¶35

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent is contending that the petitioner is not in possession of the property and that his attempt is to tresspass into the property, despite the interim stay granted by the District Court.

¶37

Learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that, the respondents 1 to 3 have no intention to interfere with the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5. On the otherhand, the 2^nd respondent had visited the property on 26.4.2019 upon receipt of a complaint from the Manager of the 5^th respondent Company that there occurred attempt to tresspass into the property. It is stated that the 2^nd respondent had only directed the parties to refrain from creating any law and order situation based on the dispute and the parties were directed to abide by the orders passed by the civil courts.

¶38

We take note of the fact that, the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 is purely civil in nature. The Police authorities have no business to interfere in such dispute. Whatever remedy required by any of the parties has to be sought from the appropriate civil court. Of course, if there arise any threat to the law and order situation, the Police shall take necessary steps to avert any untoward or criminal incidents.

¶39

WP(C).No.15056 of 2019

¶40

¶41

We record the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader that Police authorities are not intending to interfere in the dispute which is the subject matter pending in the civil courts.

¶42

Accordingly, the above writ petition is hereby disposed of subject to the observations contained herein above.

¶43

Sd/-C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

¶44

Sd/- R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

¶45

lsn

¶46

WP(C).No.15056 of 2019

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO. 220/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR DATED 29-08-2018
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-04-2019 IN I.A NO. 1840/2018 IN O.S NO. 220/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT 13- 05-2019.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22-04-2019 IN I.A NO. 638/2019 IN CMA NO. 4/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF SESSIONS, MANJERI DIVISION.

¶51

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶52

TRUE COPY

¶53

P.A TO JUDGE

¶54

LSN

Sunil Dath, v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Dath, v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Roy T.T. Vs Ramangalam Grama Panchayath

Alappuzha District Table Tennis Association, Vs Kerala State Sports Council

P.Varghese, Vs Ramamangalam Grama Panchayagth

Rinujith Christian Sahayadas, Vs the State Tax Officer

G.Mohanan Vs the State Police Chief

P.C.Krishna Pillai Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police