Petitioner sought police protection against respondent for threats and encroachment on property following a terminated mango farming agreement. Court held civil disputes regarding contract termination and damages are not for police assistance and dismissed the writ petition inlimine.
The writ petition is dismissed inlimine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1941 W.P(C).No.15192 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
SURESH.K.S., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O SUBRAMANION, KIZHAKKOOTTU HOUSE, KIZHUPILLIKARA, THRISSUR-680 702.
BY ADVS. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SMT.BEENA JOSEPH SMT.M.K.SAMYUKTHA SMT.M.R.ESHRATH BAI SMT.SREELEKHA. P SRI.E.S.SANEEJ SRI.M.P.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.N.ABHILASH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM- 695 001.
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD-678 001.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI P.P THAJUDHEEN SR GP FOR R1 TO R4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
- 2 -
WP(C).No.15192 of 2019
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
The petitioner is before us seeking police protection against the threats leveled by the 5th respondent and for peaceful enjoyment of the property belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner also submits that there is absolutely no action taken on Exhibit P3 complaint before the police.
2. A reading of the complaint indicates that
the 5th respondent was validly inducted into the property for the purpose of plucking and selling
mangoes. However, it is claimed that the 5th respondent has been using poisonous-banned chemicals for the purpose of enhanced yield. This has resulted in the destruction of the very mango trees and, hence, the petitioner has terminated the agreement with the 5th respondent. The petitioner further sates that as a result of enmity by reason of the termination of the agreement, the 5th respondent is attempting to encroach into the property and cause criminal intimidation. It
is argued that the petitioner has been threatened that
WP(C).No.15192 of 2019
- 3 -
he would not be allowed to enjoy the property peacefully unless the 5th respondent's illegal demands are satisfied.
3. It is to be noticed that there is a valid induction of the 5th respondent into the property and he has certain rights which flows from an agreement executed between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. Admittedly the petitioner has taken an advance of Rs.5,50,000/- [Rupees five lakhs and fifty thousand] from the 5th respondent. The petitioner submits that there is a termination of the agreement; Exhibit P2 is the letter issued on the same. However, the agreement itself is not produced. In any event, the termination of an agreement is a civil matter, in which it may not be proper for this Court to direct police to interfere. Further the petitioner also raises a demand of damages against the 5th respondent, from which there is a further assertion made of set-off of the advance amounts. We also notice that the contention of the petitioner in Exhibit P3 is to conduct an investigation
into the illegal activities carried on by the 5th respondent.
WP(C).No.15192 of 2019 - 4 -
It will not be proper for the police to be directed to look into whether there is any use of poisonous chemicals or to determine the loss caused. The petitioner has essentially made claims which are apt to be raised before a Civil Court for adjudication and redress. We are of the opinion that this writ petition is only a ruse to get the police involved in the matter so as to escape from the civil liabilities of a contract, the petitioner willingly entered into. The writ petition hence would stand dismissed inlimine .
Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE
Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE
WP(C).No.15192 of 2019 - 5 -
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOS OF THE MATERIALS AND MANGO TREES. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION NOTICE TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLIANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 28.5.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Vku/- [ true copy ]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct police to investigate a dispute arising from a terminated property agreement and alleged use of banned chemicals.
Whether the petitioner's writ petition is a ruse to avoid civil liabilities regarding contract termination claims.
Suresh.K.S.
State of Kerala
Superintendent of Police, Palakkad
Station House Officer, Kollegode
Sub Inspector of Police, Kollegode
Shajahan
K.Vinod Chandran
V.G.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
