Biju S.L vs Director General Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 5321 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

     MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.520 OF 2021(L)


PETITIONER:

               BIJU S.L.,
               AGED 49 YEARS,
               S/O. SUDARSHANAN, SANTHWANAM, PATTIYARATHUMVILA,
               PALACHIRA P.O, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -
               695143, NOW RESIDING AT KAVITHA FARM HOUSE, THACHODU,
               MUTTAPALAM P.O, CHEMMARUTHY VILLAGE,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695145.

               BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)

RESPONDENTS:

      1        DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
               KERALA STATE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
               KERALA - 695010.

      2        DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
               OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, VIKAS BHAVAN,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.

      3        DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
               ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695101.

      4        STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
               AYIROOR POLICE STATION, VARKALA,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695310.

      5        R. SATHEESHCHANDRAN
               SANTHWANAM, PATTIYARATHUMVILA, PALACHIRA P.O,
               VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695143.

      6        NITHIN
               S/O. SATHEESHCHANDRAN, PATTIYARATHUMVILA,
               PALACHIRA P.O, VARKALA,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695143.
 WP(C).No.520 OF 2021         2

      7      *ADDL.R-7 IMPLEADED

             RESHMI
             D/O. R. SATHEESH CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT SANTHWANAM,
             PATTIYARATHUMVILA, PALACHIRA.P.O., VARKALA,
             THIRUVNANTHAPURAM.

             (ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13-01-2021
             IN IA 1/2021 IN WP(C) 520/2021).


             R5-6 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR
             R5-6 BY ADV. SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN
             R7 BY ADV. B.S.SWATHI KUMAR
             R7 BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR N UNNI

             SRI THAJUDEEN, GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.520 OF 2021                 3




                                JUDGMENT

The 5th respondent is the father-in-law, and the 6th respondent is

the brother-in-law of the petitioner herein. Alleging that the party

respondents are interfering with the rights of the petitioner in managing

a farm purchased using his funds, he is before this Court seeking

directions to the Police to afford him protection.

2. The dispute between the parties concerns the management

of a farm. It is the case of the petitioner that though the farm was

purchased using his funds, without his knowledge and concurrence, the

document was registered in the name of his wife. According to him, he

was working abroad till 2019 and only when he returned to India did he

realise that he was cheated. He started occupying the farm and has

been conducting agricultural activities, pisciculture and rearing livestock.

When he demanded his wife to retransfer the property, she refused.

Their relationship became strained as a result. He states that on

27.12.2020, the respondents 5 and 6 along with their men came to the

farm where the petitioner is residing and attacked the petitioner. He

lodged Ext.P1 complaint before the police. His grievance is that no

action was taken. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is

before this Court seeking the following directions.

a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner free from the threat of respondents 5 and 6 and their goondas.

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 4th respondent to consider and take action on Ext.P1 complaint as early as possible within a time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

3. The petitioner had not arrayed his wife as a party to the

proceeding. She filed an application to get herself impleaded and the

same was allowed.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent

denying the entire contentions. According to the 5th respondent, the

petitioner used to torture his wife and squandered away her money and

gold. The marital relationship has become strained and the spouses

have been living separately from the year 2012. It is stated that the

farm is being run by his daughter and he and his son have been

assisting her. It is stated that the petitioner used to trespass into the

farm and attempt to cause harm to his wife. Some injuries were also

inflicted as can be seen from Exhibit R5(b) wound certificate. A

complaint was lodged before the police by his daughter. It is further

stated that his daughter has already approached the Family Court

seeking return of gold and cash, for the dissolution of marriage and for

the maintenance of their two children. He would also contend that the

police are acting hand in glove with the petitioner. It is further stated

that the petitioner, with the assistance of the police, has managed to sell

some buffaloes and fish and have misappropriated the proceeds.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the wife of the petitioner, it

is contended that the farm was purchased using her funds and with the

monetary assistance offered by her father and brother. Exhibit R7(a) is

the tax receipt in her favour. Exhibit R7(b) license was obtained by her

from the Dy. Director of Fisheries to start an aquaculture farm. She is

also rearing goats, buffaloes, and poultry. The petitioner has no right

over the farm, and he has illegally trespassed into the farm and has

been causing mischief. In the said circumstances, she approached the

jurisdictional Magistrate and filed a petition invoking the provisions of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The

Magistrate has interdicted the petitioner from causing any domestic

violence, either mental or physical, and he was also restrained from

entering the farm until further orders. If the petitioner is granted

protection as prayed for, he would continue to cause mischief.

6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit wherein he has

produced a copy of his bank statement to bring home the point that the

money obtained by the sale of his property was deposited in the joint

name of the petitioner and his wife. He would contend that the

allegation of assault made by his wife is false as CCTV footage would

reveal that he was in a different place when the incident is alleged to

have occurred. He would contend that the petition before the Family

Court was lodged only after notice in this writ petition was served on the

respondents 5 and 6. It is further stated that the learned Magistrate has

modified the order passed under the PWDV Act and has kept the order

in abeyance. He would further state that he has already approached the

Munsiff Court, Varkala and has filed a suit praying for a permanent

prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from trespassing into

the farm. A Commissioner was appointed and he has visited the

property and has prepared Exhibit P8 report which reveals that the

petitioner is residing in a shed inside the farm and the entire activities

are carried out by him including a training centre for Bio Flock

Technology.

7. In the counter filed by the Inspector of Police, the fourth

respondent herein it is stated that on enquiry it is revealed that the

petitioner is carrying out the day-to-day activities of the farm for the last

few months and that he is staying in the farmhouse and running the

farm. He is also stated that he has given instructions to respondents 5

and 6 not to enter the farm and create a law-and-order situation. It is

also stated that if any law and order situation arises warranting

interference by the Police, they shall intervene.

8. An additional counter affidavit has been filed by the seventh

respondent. She has produced Exhibit R7(d) possession Certificate

issued by the village officer to show that she is in possession of the

farm. She has also produced the tax receipt as well as the renewed

aquaculture license Certificate issued by the Deputy Director of Fisheries

Thiruvananthapuram.

9. I have anxiously considered the submissions. The records

before this Court reveals that the owner of the farm is the additional 7th

respondent, the wife of the petitioner herein. The current license for

carrying out aquaculture is also in her name. This fact is not disputed by

the petitioner. I find from the commission report as well as the

statement by the Station House officer that the petitioner is residing in

the farm and has been doing some Bio Flock Training and other

activities. Sri.Anoop Mulavana has also referred to some videos uploaded

in the social media wherein the petitioner is shown to have a major role

in the running of the farm. Sri. Swathi Kumar has disputed this

contention and according to him, the petitioner has no authority or right

to enter the farm and cause disruption. I find that the petitioner has

already approached the Civil Court seeking injunction arraying the

respondents 5 and 6 and the same is pending. It is also undisputed that

the wife has approached the Family Court and has filed a petition

seeking divorce and return of money. The complaint filed by the wife

under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is also

pending. As held by the Apex Court in P.R.Muralidharan v. Swami

Dharmananda Theertha Padar [(2006) 4 SCC 501], this Court

cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. That has to be

done in a properly instituted civil suit. Now that the petitioner has

already approached the Civil Court seeking injunction, it is for him to

pursue his remedies. It would not be proper for this Court to adjudicate

on the possession of either of the parties in the facts and circumstances,

lest it may cause prejudice to the other side in the proceedings pending

before the jurisdictional court.

10. However, I find that the only relief sought for by the

petitioner in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4

to provide effective protection to the petitioner from any threats on the

part of the respondents 5 and 6. It appears that the petitioner has

already approached the police and has lodged a complaint. The dispute

between husband and wife notwithstanding, the party respondents will

not be justified in causing physical harm to the petitioner. In the same

manner, the petitioner also will not be justified in taking law into his own

hands and in any way harming his wife. Proceedings are pending before

the Family Court, the jurisdictional Magistrate as well as the Civil Court.

The parties shall abide by the orders passed by the jurisdictional court.

If either of the parties lodge a complaint before the police alleging

commission of offence, the 4th respondent shall look into the

genuineness of the complaint and shall take appropriate action.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE ps

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1             TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
                       06.01.2021 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2             TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED
                       06.01.2021.

EXHIBIT P3             TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT

EXHIBIT P4             TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FORWARDED TO
                       THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 9/1/2021

EXHIBIT P5             TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16/1/2021

EXHIBIT P6             TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MC 06/21 OF THE
                       JFMC-1,VARKALA

EXHIBIT P7             TRUE COPY OF THE OS NO 15/2021 PENDING
                       BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA

EXHIBIT P8             TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN OS
                       15/2021 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA.


RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R5(a)          TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY RESHMI
                       BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF
                       POLICE,AYIROOR POLICE STATION DATED 9-1-
                       2021.

EXHIBIT R5(b)          TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
                       ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT TALUK HOSPITAL,
                       VARKALA DATED 9-1-2021.

EXHIBIT R7(a)          TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
                       17.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
                       CHEMMARUTHY.

EXHIBIT R7(b)          TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE
                       NO.KL/TVM/AQLI/280 DATED 11.6.2019 ISSUED
                       BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,
                       THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.



EXHIBIT R7(c)          TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN

CRL.M.P.NO.393/2021 IN M.C.NO.6/2021 DATED 12.1.2021 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, VARKALA.

/ TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE