Kerala High Court
Sadasivan P.P vs Director General Of Police on 30 July, 2021
WP(C) NO. 2122 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 2122 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
SADASIVAN P.P,
AGED 69 YEARS,
S/O LATE PADMANABHAN, PRAVELIL,
AZAD ROAD, KOCHI-682017.
BY ADVS.
MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
SMT.REENA THOMAS
SMT.NIGI GEORGE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
SATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.
2 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
COCHIN CITY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682011.
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ERNAKULAM NORTH POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018.
4 MR.MOHANDAS.P.P,
SREYAS, NEAR EAST POLICE STATION,
K.K.ROAD, COLLECTORATE.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686002.
*5 ADDL.R5:
SMT.RETHI DEVI BOSE, RESIDING AT 93 CALLAGHAN AVE,
GLEN WAVERLEY, VIC 3150, AUSTRALIA.
WP(C) NO. 2122 OF 2021 2
*
ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 30.07.2021 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2021.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SUJIN
SRI P P THAJUDEEN, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 2122 OF 2021 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that he is a senior citizen and the 4th respondent
herein is his brother. It is contended that there is a dispute between the
petitioner and his sister, Smt. Rethi Devi P.P., over an item of property which
is in the possession of the petitioner. Challenging the order passed by the
revenue authorities in permitting his sister to have the change of registry
effected in her favour, the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal before
the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same is pending. It is contended that
the 4th respondent with the support of the police personnel trespassed into
the property and managed to install a gate after demolishing the compound
wall. It is contended that the police have no authority to interfere in civil
disputes and support the illegal acts of his brother. In the said
circumstances, the petitioner is stated to have lodged Ext.P5 complaint before
the police. However, no action was taken. It is in the above backdrop that
the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
1. Issue a writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ or order
directing the 1st Respondent to cause an enquiry into Ext.P5 and
pass appropriate orders directing the 3rd Respondent not to interfere
in the property dispute raised by the 4th Respondent.
2. Direct Respondents 1 & 2 to take suitable action against the third
Respondent for enabling the 4th Respondent to demolish the
compound wall of the Petitioner and installing a gate without the
assistance of any civil court order.
2. A statement has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Ernakulam, Central Sub Division for and on behalf of the respondents
1 to 3. In paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the statement, it is stated as follows:
'3. On receipt of Ext.P5 complaint, the 1st respondent State Police
Chief directed this respondent to inquire into the matter. On inquiry,
it is learned that on 11th January, 2021 a complaint was preferred by
one Mr. Dini Prakash for and on behalf of Sri. Rathi Devi, who is none
other than petitioner's sister, before the 3rd respondent. The
complaint which was accepted in the Station and registered as IAPS
No.18803/2021 was about that, the petitioner is not allowing her to
sell her land, not allowing to instal a gate and also to construct a fence
around her property. She further stated that the petitioner abused
her and threatened her to hurt anyone who comes to look at her
property. She further stated that her eldest brother Mohandas and
her cousin Dini Prakash arranged materials to construct the fence and
to fix a gate which was scheduled to be completed by the following
week.
4. Receiving the above complaint, two civil police officers from the 3rd
respondent's police station visited the property on 12.1.2021. All
parties concerned viz., Mr. Sadasivan, Mr. Mohandas and Mr. Dini
Prakash were present at the place. Mr. Dini Prakash showed the
documents regarding the ownership of the land owned by Smt.Rathi
Devi. However, the petitioner did not show any document to
substantiate his claim over the disputed land. It is therefore,
instructed the parties to approach the civil court for relief and to get a
permanent solution to the issue. Sri. Dini Prakash was also instructed
to convey the matter to Mrs. Rathi Devi who is abroad.'
3. I have heard Sri. Mohan Jacob George, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. N.N.Sugunapalan, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the party respondents as instructed by Sri. Sujin.
4. In the statement filed by the ACP, it is emphatically stated that it
was based on a complaint lodged by one of the parties that the police
reached the spot with a view to conduct an enquiry and ascertain the actual
facts. It is also stated that the grievance of the parties was considered and
they were instructed to approach the civil court to have a permanent solution
to their disputes.
5. As per Section 63 of the Police Act, if any person brings to the
notice of the circumstance of a dispute between any individuals or groups
which if not resolved at the earliest is likely to culminate into a cognizable
offence, the Station House Officer is required to take steps
(a) to ascertain the facts and circumstances of the matter by
interacting with the individuals concerned or to others acquainted
with such facts; or
(b) to give warning in writing to any individuals or all groups involved
in the dispute against the doing of any unlawful act in continuation of
the dispute; or
(c) to encourage individuals or groups involved in the dispute to
redress the dispute through mutual discussion or through mediation;
or
(d) to advise individuals or groups to approach the Competent Court
having jurisdiction for redressing the dispute; or
(e) to require the individuals or groups to seek redressal of the
dispute by appearing before an Executive Magistrate having
jurisdiction; or
(f) to report facts before the Magistrate having jurisdiction for taking
suitable action against any individual or all groups under the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of
1974)).
6. From the statement, it is apparent that the police were merely
discharging their duties to ensure that the incident did not escalate into a law
and order situation. Now that they have expressed that the police have no
intention to involve in the civil dispute, and rightly so, the petitioner cannot
have any further grievance. However, if information is received of the
commission of cognizable offences or of a situation warranting interference
by the police, they shall act strictly in terms of the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
With the above observations, this writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
NS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2122/2021
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO.1210/1976
DATED 05.04.1976 OF ERNAKULAM SRO.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1180/1991 DATED
04.04.1991 OF ERNAKULAM SRO.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2016(2)
KLT 991.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.01.2021
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY SMT.RETHI
DEVI BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES DULY
ATTESTED BY A NOTARY IN AUSTRALIA.
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY.
EXHIBIT P8 AFFIDAVIT OF SRI.LENIN K K.
EXHIBIT P9 AFFIDAVIT OF SRI.A.V.BHASKARAN.
EXHIBIT P10 AFFIDAVIT OF SRI.P B NAGESH.
EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.03.2021
SUBMITTED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION
ACT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE CALL LIST (OBTAINED FROM
BSNL) MADE FROM THE MOBILE NUMBER
9895158166 ON 13.01.2021.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE WILL DATED 01.03.1985.
EXHIBIT R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE
LOCATION OF THE PROPERTIES HELD BY THE
ALLOTTEES UNDER EXHIBIT-P1 SETTLEMENT
DEED.
