Kerala High Court
Bobby John vs City Police Commissioner on 23 July, 2021
WP(C) NO. 13221 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 13221 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
BOBBY JOHN
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.M.J.JOHN, DH-GALILEE, FLAT NO. C2, SECOND FLOOR,
C.C. NO. 58/142-C2, KONTHURUTHY ROAD, THEVARA P.O,
PIN - 682013, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
K.V.JAYADEEP MENON
T.P.RAMESH (THENGUMPILLIL)
P.KRISHNAPRIYA
JINS.P.JOHN
RESPONDENTS:
1 CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM,
REVENUE TOWER, OPPOSITE CHILDREN PARK, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682011.
2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
REVENUE TOWER, OPPOSITE CHILDREN PARK,
ERNAKULAM - 682011.
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, M.G. ROAD,
THEVARA JUNCTION, PERUMANOOR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682015.
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VANITHA CELL, CANAL ROAD, KANNANKULANGARA,
THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682301.
5 ANTONY DEVASIA,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.D.K.VARGHESE, DH-GALILEE, FLAT NO.A4, FOURTH
FLOOR, C.C.DOOR NO. 58/142-A4, KONTHURUTHY ROAD,
THEVARA P.O, PIN - 682013, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
WP(C) NO. 13221 OF 2021 2
6 RENCY ANTONY
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O. ANTONY DEVASIA, DH-GALILEE, FLAT NO.A4,
FOURTH FLOOR, C.C.DOOR NO.58/142-A4,
KONTHURUTHY ROAD, THEVARA P.O, PIN - 682013,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
7 PRINCE ABRAHAM
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.P.V. ABRAHAM, DH-GALILEE, FLAT NO.C3,
THIRD FLOOR, C.C.DOOR NO. 58/142-C3,
KONTHURUTHY ROAD, THEVARA P.O, PIN - 682013,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
8 ALEENA PRINCE
AGED 28 YEARS
W/O. PRINCE ABRAHAM, DH-GALILEE, FLAT NO.C3,
THIRD FLOOR, C.C.DOOR NO.58/142-C3,
KONTHURUTHY ROAD, THEVARA P.O,
PIN - 682013, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
SRI PP THAJUDEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 13221 OF 2021 3
JUDGMENT
Complaining of harassment by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, at the
instance of the party respondents, the petitioner is before this Court seeking
directions.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that a six storied apartment complex
consisting of 15 flats and having the name 'DH Galilee' was constructed on an
item of property owned by the petitioner. The petitioner retained the right to
construct six apartments and the right to construct the rest of the apartments
were handed over to a builder. Respondents 5 to 7 are residents of the very
same apartment complex. There is a dispute as regards the parking of vehicles
between the petitioner and the party respondents. He contends that the party
respondents have been approaching the police and lodging false complaints
against the petitioner. According to him, on several occasions, the petitioner
was summoned by respondents 3 and 4 and he is being asked to withdraw the
civil suit filed by him and also to provide additional parking space to the party
respondents. He contends that the complaints lodged by him are being
ignored. According to the petitioner, the dispute between him and the party
respondents are purely civil in nature and the police have no right to interfere
with the same. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has
approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents 3 and 4 or any other
Police Officer under them to refrain from harassing the petitioner or in
interfering with his peaceful life.
3. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.
It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner herein had
lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Ernakulam Town South
Police Station, alleging that the 5th respondent herein, who was the former
Secretary of the apartment building, was creating a nuisance. The 5th
respondent had also lodged a complaint alleging acts and omissions against the
petitioner. Respondents 7 and 8 who are ladies also lodged a complaint before
the police alleging that the petitioner was interfering with their rights to park
vehicles in the apartment building. On receipt of the complaint, the petitioner
as well as the party respondents were summoned. On hearing them, it was
realized that the dispute was purely civil in nature and the parties were directed
to move the civil court and obtain relief. It is submitted that the allegations of
harassment by the police have no basis and the police officers have not
demanded that the petitioner should withdraw the suit or allot the parking
space. The said submission is recorded.
4. In that view of the matter, no further orders are required to be
passed. The respondents 3 and 4 shall notice Section 63 of the Police Act, 2011
which details the circumstances under which the Station House Officer can
interfere in a dispute between individuals or groups. He shall not be summoned
to the police station in connection with civil disputes. If the presence of the
petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation in any crime registered,
the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the issuance of
notice to secure his appearance shall be strictly complied with.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
SMF
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13221/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MASS PETITION
DATED 25.02.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT HEREIN AND ITS RECEIPT.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
RECEIPT OF PETITION AND THE COPY OF THE
PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04.03.2021.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT ON 26.03.2021.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
DISTRICT POLICE COMPLAINT AUTHORITY DATED
26.03.2021.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 29.06.2021.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL
