George Joseph vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 10644 Ker

Kerala High Court

George Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 40516 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:

    1     GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 62 YEARS
          S/O JOSEPH, VILAYIL BANGLAW, MUKKADU, KAVANAD P O,
          KOLLAM, PIN - 691003

    2     PRAMEELA, AGED 53 YEARS
          W/O GEORGE JOSEPH, VILAYIL BANGLAW, MUKKADU,
          KAVANAD P O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691003

          M.T.SURESHKUMAR
          MANJUSHA K
          SREELAKSHMI SABU
          RESWIN A. KHADIR


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THE
          DEPARTMENT OF HOME SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    2     DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
          LINK ROAD, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691001

    3     STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SAKTHIKULANGARA
          POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691003

    4     CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
          SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691003

    5     POLIKKARPP, S/O JOSEPH, KANDACHEZHATHU THEKKETHIL,
          MEENATHU CHERY, KAVANAD P O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691003

          P.MOHAMED SABAH
          SAIPOOJA(K/001130/2016)
          R.N.SAJITHA(K/485/2005)
          SRI.P.M.SHAMEER, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 40516 OF 2023
                                 2


                             JUDGMENT

The petitioners and the fifth respondent are stated to be

neighbours and assert that the latter is trying to trespass into

their property illegally and to destroy the fence between it. They

say that since they have been subjected to extreme threats and

intimidation by the fifth respondent, they were forced to

approach the third respondent for police protection, through

Ext.P1, which has not been acceded to; thus constraining them

to approach this Court through this writ petition. They thus pray

that the police Authorities be directed to afford them adequate

and effective protection, from the threats and intimidation

allegedly being meted out to them by the fifth respondent.

2. However, in response to the afore submissions of

Smt.Sreelakshmi Sabu - learned counsel for the petitioners,

Smt.Saipooja - appearing for the fifth respondent, submitted that

Ext.P1 would limpidly render the afore assertions of the

petitioners untrue because, what is requested therein by the

petitioners is that the Police give them protection for the purpose

of construction of a fencing through the boundaries of the

properties. She submitted that this is impermissible and

untenable because, her client has already initiated civil litigation

with respect to the same, which is still pending. She thus prayed WP(C) NO. 40516 OF 2023

that this writ petition be dismissed; however, adding that her

client has not, and does not intend, to cause any threat or

intimidation, much less attack on the petitioners.

3. Sri.P.M.Shameer - learned Government Pleader, affirmed

that the disputes between the parties are in the civil realm, into

which the Police cannot normally intervene. He, however,

submitted that, as in the case of every citizen, the Police had

taken note of the complaint of the petitioner, and are ensuring

that the lives of the rival parties are well protected, with none of

them being allowed to take any action which is contrary to law.

He concluded saying that the disputes between the parties will

have to be resolved through the appropriate forum/Court and

hence that the Police will ensure that they do so, without

violating law.

4. There can be little doubt that the afore stand of the

Police is the most apposite in the given circumstances because,

both sides allege that the other is trying to trespass into their

properties and is destroying the fencing and such other boundary

markings. In fact, it is the specific case of the petitioners that

the fifth respondent has done so several times in the past and

that he is also using vituperate and filthy language. WP(C) NO. 40516 OF 2023

5. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the Police must now

ensure that the lives of both sides are adequately protected

against each other and that their disputes do not degenerate into

a law and order issue.

6. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition,

directing the third respondent to ensure that the lives of the

petitioners, as also that of the fifth respondent, are protected

against each other and that they are protected from any threat or

intimidation against one another. The said officer will also

ensure that law and order is always maintained, without any of

the parties being allowed to break it, or to take law into their

own hands.

That said, the remedies of the petitioners and the fifth

respondent, before the competent forum/Court, is fully left open;

and I also record the submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the Suit filed by the fifth respondent presently

stands dismissed for default, which factum is controverted by the

learned counsel for the said respondent

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 40516 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40516/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SHO, SHAKTIKULANGARA POLICE STATION ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT DATED 31/10/2023

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS 135 OF 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIF COURT KOLLAM

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN IA NO. 783 OF 2023 IN OS NO.

135 OF 2018