Kerala High Court
Mohammed Nisamudheen vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 30 July, 2021
WP(C) NO. 924 OF 2020 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. 924 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
MOHAMMED NISAMUDHEEN,
AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O.MUTHUKOYA,KANNATHIN MADA,CHEMMACHERI,ANDROTT,
LAKSHADWEEP.
BY ADVS.
V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL
SHRI. GOVIND MADHUSOODHANAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
ANDROTT POLICE STATION, LAKSHADWEEP-682551.
2 ALITHARA AMEEN,
S/O.HAMSA KOYA, ALITHARA HOUSE, ANDROTT,
LAKSHADWEEP-682551.
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KAVARATTI-682555.
BY ADV SRI.MANU.S, SCGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION
TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP
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. 924 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner complaining that he is being
subjected to harassment by the 1st respondent based on a complaint lodged
by the 2nd respondent.
2. Sri. Manu. S., the learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondents 1 and 3, submitted that a complaint was received that there are
serious disputes between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and if not
intervened, it may escalate into a law and order situation. With intent to
prevent the commission of a cognizable offence, the police intervened. Since
the dispute appeared to be between the landlord and tenant, the parties were
advised to move the civil court. It is stated that no crime has been registered
against either of the parties and that the police have no reason to interfere in
the civil dispute between the parties.
3. I have heard Sri. V.R.K.Kaimal, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri. Manu. S., the learned standing counsel appearing for the
Lakshadweep Administration. In view of the order that I propose to pass,
notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with.
4. As per Section 63 of the Police Act, if any person brings to notice
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)).
5. From the submissions of the learned standing counsel, 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 the
information is received of the commission of cognizable offences or of a
situation warranting interference by the police, the police 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
