Bombay High Court
Namdevrao S/O Dhondbarao Kadam vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 19 October, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Abhay S. Waghwase
958-CriWP-1375-2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
958 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1375 OF 2022
NAMDEVRAO S/O DHONDBARAO KADAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
.....
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. B. R. Waramaa
APP for Respondents : Mr. M. M. Nerlikar
.....
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
DATED : 19 OCTOBER 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER :- MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. We have heard learned Advocate Mr. Waramaa for the
petitioner and the learned APP.
3. The petitioner is claiming the following relief :
"(A) By issuing Writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ or
directions of like nature the R. Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to
grant application/representation dt. 24/8/2022 and to
grant police protection to the petitioner so as he can live
peacefully in his house plot No. 43/44, Omkareshwar
Nagar, Taroda Bk, Nanded without fear of false
accusation at the hands of persons who are daily
committing breach of interim injunction granted by
learned civil court on 22/12/2021 below Ex-5 in RCS No.
232/2021."
958-CriWP-1375-2022
4. The learned Advocate Mr. Waramaa would take us through the
papers and would point out that the petitioner is the owner of the
house property, but his possession is being illegally obstructed by his
daughter-in-law, who is having a matrimonial dispute with his son.
The petitioner has filed a suit against her and the Civil Court has
granted temporary injunction restraining his daughter-in-law, his son
who is her husband, and her parents and brother from causing
obstruction and interference in his peaceful possession over the house
property till decision of the suit. He submits that in spite of such
injunction in his favour, the daughter-in-law and her relatives are
bent upon to obstruct possession in breach of the injunction. To
protect his possession and to save any threat to his life, he submitted
an application dated 24.08.2022 with the concerned Superintendent
of Police, seeking police protection at his cost, but his application is
not being considered, either allowed or rejected.
5. Mr. Waramaa points out from the CCTV footage that the
daughter-in-law with the help of the police machinery, has effected
forcible entry by breaking open the lock of the gate of the compound.
He therefore submits that the petitioner has a right to apply for police
protection to secure his right enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
958-CriWP-1375-2022
6. Learned APP would submit that the parties are already before
the Civil Court which has even granted temporary injunction and it
would be for the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from that Court
to enforce the temporary injunction which is already granted in his
favour. He would submit that the police cannot be made a party
circuitously to any civil dispute.
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused
the papers.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed a civil suit and has even
succeeded in obtaining a temporary injunction against not only the
daughter-in-law and his son, but even her parents and brother.
Needless to state that if at all he is now complaining about any breach
of injunction, it would be apposite for him to enforce that injunction
and even seek to take steps for breach of injunction in the very same
suit before the Civil Court. Even if he wants some police protection in
that regard, it would always be open for him to apply to the Civil
Court even for that purpose.
9. In the exercise of this writ petition, it would not be proper for
this Court to issue any writ which, directly or indirectly, either would
aid the Civil Court or obstruct its due process.
958-CriWP-1375-2022
10. Pertinently, the petitioner as also the daughter-in-law had filed
proceedings against each other under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., but
the concerned Magistrate has rejected both these applications.
Learned Advocate Mr. Waramaa points out that that rejection was in
respect of the applications filed before filing of the suit and even that
order is under challenge before this Court. He also points out that
another proceeding under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has been
subsequently initiated even against the police officers allegedly aiding
the daughter-in-law, which is pending before the Magistrate. If such is
the case, it would still be further difficult for this Court to issue any
writ by undertaking some inquiry when the matter is seized with the
learned Magistrate.
11. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, when
an appropriate remedy can be had from the Civil Court in the pending
litigation, we feel that the writ petition is not maintainable. The writ
petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]
vre
