Dismissed¶44

Sajid Kambrath v. Director General of Police Kerala

Kerala HC26 Mar 2025WP(C)/30383/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC writ petition seeking police protection refused; Article 226 discretionary jurisdiction not exercised for civil dispute; chit company DHANASURABHI directors' management dispute (Sajid Kambrath v. Linee Abraham, Malappuram/Nilambur); Padmanabhan N v. State of Kerala 2024 KHC Online 7177 relied on; complaint-route directive to jurisdictional Police Station; WP(C) 30383/2023; C.S. Dias J.; decided 26.03.2025; 2025:KER:27303.

What did the court decide?

No direction for police protection issued; the petitioner remains free to approach the jurisdictional Police Station with any law-and-order complaint, which the Police Station shall enquire into and act upon in accordance with law, without interfering in the civil dispute between the parties. The writ petition is 'ordered accordingly'. ¶44

Sajid Kambrath Vs Director General of Police Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 to 3 ought to be directed to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner's life and property against the threats allegedly caused by the 4th respondent, notwithstanding that the underlying dispute over the company's management and administration is civil in nature.

¶25-27

Ratio / Principle

On consideration of the facts and materials on record, particularly the disputes between the parties regarding the management and administration of the company, the learned Judge is prima facie satisfied that the disputes are civil in nature.

¶34

Key takeaways

This Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct police protection for what is a private civil dispute.ratio¶44
If any law and order problem arises, the petitioner may approach the jurisdictional Police Station and file a complaint; the jurisdictional Police Station shall conduct an enquiry and take action on the complaint in accordance with law, without interfering in any civil dispute between the parties.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam), single bench of C.S. Dias J., disposed WP(C) No. 30383 of 2023 on 26.03.2025 (2025:KER:27303). Petitioner Sajid Kambrath, a director of the chit company 'DHANASURABHI', sought a direction to respondents 1-3 (DGP; SP Malappuram; SHO Nilambur) to afford police protection against alleged harassment and threats by respondent 4, Linee Abraham, a co-director whom he had accused of malpractices. Respondent 4, in a counter affidavit, held the dispute purely civil and alleged the petition was aimed at excluding her from company affairs. Prima facie satisfied that the dispute over the company's management and administration was civil in nature, and relying on Padmanabhan N v. State of Kerala (2024 KHC Online 7177) - police protection cannot be sought for private civil disputes, which belong to competent civil courts with enforcement through the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - the Judge declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was left free to lodge any law-and-order complaint before the jurisdictional Police Station, which is to enquire and act in accordance with law without interfering in the civil dispute. The writ petition was ordered accordingly.

¶1

2025:KER:27303

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶6

WP(C) NO. 30383 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SAJID KAMBRATH
AGED 42 YEARS

¶9

S/O SEEDHI, KAMBRATH HOUSE, MAMBAD P.O, PALATHINGAL,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676542

¶10

BY ADVS.
BIMALA BABY
JEFRIN JOSE
JASMINE LIGY
MAGI PAVITHRAN
ROSHAN SHAJI

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KERALA POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695010

¶13

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, UP HILL POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-, PIN - 676505

¶14

3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER NILAMBUR POLICE STATIONNILAMBUR- GUDALUR ROAD, NILAMBUR P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - KERALA –, PIN - 679329

¶15

4LINEE ABRAHAM
AGED 45, THYPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLODE, MAMBAD P.O,
VADAPURAM, MALAPURAM DISTRICT-, PIN - 676542

¶16

BY ADVS.
SABU GEORGE .
P.B.KRISHNAN(K/1193/1994)

¶17

WP(C) No.30383 of 2023 2

¶18

2025:KER:27303

¶19

P.B.SUBRAMANYAN(K/1145/2009)
MANU VYASAN PETER(K/000652/2013)
GP.SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) No.30383 of 2023 3

¶22

2025:KER:27303

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 26^th day of March, 2025

¶25

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 1 to

¶26

3 to afford adequate police protection to the life and property

¶27

of the petitioner from the threats being caused by the 4^th respondent.

¶28

The petitioner is one of the director of the chit company named ‘DHANASURABHI’. The 4^th respondent is also one of the director’s of the said company. As the 4^th respondent committed malpractices in the company, the petitioner brought this to the notice of the other directors. Immediately, the 4^th respondent started harassing the petitioner and threatening the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends that the 4^th respondent would cause harm to his life and property. Hence, the writ petition.

¶29

The 4^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the writ petition. It is contended that, the petitioner's attempt is only to prevent the 4^th respondent from participating in the affairs of the company.

¶30

The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The

¶31

WP(C) No.30383 of 2023 4

¶32

2025:KER:27303 4^th respondent has also filed Ext.R4(h) before the 2^nd respondent, regarding the false complaint filed by the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

¶33

Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

¶34

On a consideration of the facts and the materials on record, particularly there are disputes between the parties regarding the management and administration of the company, I am prima facie satisfied that the disputes are civil in nature.

¶35

In Padmanabhan N v. State of Kerala (2024 KHC

¶36

Online 7177), the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:

¶37

“6. Police protection cannot be asked for issues that fall within the jurisdiction of civil courts, particularly when it involves resolving private disputes between parties. It is well established in law that civil rights must be adjudicated by competent civil courts. The enforcement of civil court orders should be carried out in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or any relevant statute that establishes the

¶38

WP(C) No.30383 of 2023 5

¶39

2025:KER:27303

¶40

appropriate forums for such matters.

¶41

xxx xxx xxx

¶42

Seeking and employing a police force cannot be a means to sidestep the need for dispute resolution in competent courts. Invariably, such directions are sought invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

¶43

On a consideration of the facts and the materials on

¶44

record, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, if there is any law and order problem, it will be up to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Police Station and file a complaint in the said regard. If such complaint is filed, the jurisdictional Police Station shall conduct an enquiry and take action on the complaint, in accordance with law, without interfering in any civil dispute between the parties.

¶45

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶46

Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶47

AJ

¶48

WP(C) No.30383 of 2023 6

¶49

2025:KER:27303

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30383/2023

¶51

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶52

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 08/09/2023 FILED
BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶53

Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
NO.3 DATED 08/09/2023

¶54

Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 08/09//2023
FILED BEFORE RESPONDENT NO. 2

¶55

Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT ISSUED FROM
OFFICE OF RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 08/09/2023

¶56

Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER
THOROUGH EMAIL BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED
12/9/2023

¶57

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶58

Exhibit-R4(a)A true copy of the Form No.INC 33, e-memorandum
of Association filed by the Company at the time
of incorporation dated 23-10-2019
Exhibit-R4(b)A true copy of Form No.INC 34, e-Articles of
Association of the Company dated 23-10-2019
Exhibit-R4(c)A true copy of the Company Information dated 27-
09-2023
Exhibit-R4(d)A true copy of email dated 01-07-2023
Exhibit-R4(e)A true copy of email dated 14-07-2023
Exhibit-R4(f)A true copy of email dated 20-07-2023
Exhibit-R4(g)A true copy of the resolutions passed by the
Board of Directors in its meeting held on 14-07-
2023

¶59

Exhibit-R4(h)A true copy of the draft of the complaint filed
by Respondent No.4 on 11-09-2023 in the Nilambur
Sub Divisional Office of Police along with its
receipt

Sajid Kambrath v. Director General of Police Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid Kambrath v. Director General of Police Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mujeeb Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Anas P Vs Airtel Payments Bank

Muhamed Safvan E Vs Union of India

L.Sudhakaran Vs State of Kerala

Noushad S Vs District Police Chief

Dr. Ampili.M. Vs State Police Chief