Kerala High Court
Sajan. B.B @ Sajan vs Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 4 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 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 28950 OF 2023
OS NO.1029 OF 2016 OF I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT ,NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER:
SAJAN. B.B @ SAJAN, AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. BELSSASAR, SANTIKA KUDIYIRIPPIL, VLANGAMURI,
KADAVATTARAM DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695121
BY ADVS.
M.R.SARIN
PARVATHI KRISHNA
SAUMYA.P.S
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
OFFICE OF DYSP, NEYYATTINKARA, KATTAKKADA ROAD,
ALUMMOODU, NEYYATTINKARA, PIN - 695121
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, NEYYATTINKARA KATTAKKADA
ROAD, ALUMMOODU, NEYYATTINKARA, PIN - 695121
3 PAUL. R., LITTLE FLOWER COTTEGE, NETAJI NAGAR,
PRAVACHAMBALAM, NEMAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695020
4 SHAIJU LAL, ARUN KRISHNA BUILDING, NEYYATTINKARA SREE
KRISHNA TEMPLE, NEYYATTINKARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,,
PIN - 695121
5 K.R BAIJU LAL, ARUN KRISHNA BUILDING, NEYYATTINKARA
SREE KRISHNA TEMPLE, NEYYATTINKARA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695121
SRI P M SHAMEER-GP;
SRI R UMASANKAR-R3 TO R5
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 28950 OF 2023
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that he has been threatened and
attacked by respondents 3 to 5; and that they have, in fact, cut
down his rubber trees and taken away about 3000 hollow bricks,
sand, soil and rubber sheets, resultant to which, he has suffered
great loss. He says that, he has, therefore, preferred Exts.P3 and
P4 complaints before respondents 2 and 1 respectively, but that
no action has been taken thereon, including to afford him
adequate protection.
2. However, in response to the afore submissions of
Sri.Sarin - learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Uma Shankar -
learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5, submitted that
the afore allegations are not only untrue, but totally mischievous
because, the attempt of the petitioner is to use an order from
this Court in subsisting civil disputes between the parties, with
respect to the property in question. He contended that this
attempt is extremely malicious and therefore, prayed that this
writ petition be dismissed. He added that, in fact, on his clients'
complaint, an FIR has been registered against the petitioner
also.
WP(C) NO. 28950 OF 2023
3. Sri.P.M.Shameer - learned Government Pleader, in
response, submitted that the Police have investigated and found
that the allegations of the petitioner are not fully true and that
the parties are involved in various civil litigations, with respect
to the properties. He added that the police will maintain law
and order and will protect the lives of both parties; but that they
cannot intervene in any of their disputes, as they are beyond
their jurisdictional realm.
4. The afore submissions of the learned Government
Pleader are the most apposite in the given circumstances
because, the Police cannot and should not intervene in any civil
disputes between the parties, though they are expected in law to
protect their lives, as in the case of any other citizen. Since the
petitioner has only sought that the police be directed to protect
his life, I am certain that this Court will be justified in disposing
of this writ petition with the following directions:
(a) The second respondent is directed to ensure that law
and order is maintained in the area and that the lives of the
petitioner, as also that of respondents 3 to 5, are protected
against each other, from any threat or illegal action.
WP(C) NO. 28950 OF 2023
(b) It is, however, clarified that the afore directions cannot
be used by any person, including the parties to this case, in any
other litigation or forums and that it is confined solely to the
protection of their lives against threats to each other.
Needless to say, this Court has not entered into the merits
of the internecine disputes between the parties and that they are
all left open.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
WP(C) NO. 28950 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28950/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO
1029/2016 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF
COURT NEYYANTTINKARA
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDIATION REPORT IN
OSNO1029/2016 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL
MUNSIFF COURT NEYYANTTINKARA DATED 21
01.2017
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION LETTER
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED ON 23.08.2023
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION LETTER
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT ON 23.8. 2023
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER WP[C] NO
28255/2023 BEFORE THIS HONBLE HIGH COURT
DATED ON 23.8.2023
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R3(a) Copy of the Sale Deed No.773/2023 dated
16.06.2023
Exhibit R3(b) Copy of the basic tax receipt dated
10.0702023
Exhibit R3(c) Copy of the complainant dated 28.09.2023.
Exhibit R3(d) Copy of the receipt
Exhibit R3(e) Copy of the notice dated 28.08.2023 issued
U/s 149 Cr.P.C.
Exhibit R3(f) Copy of the reply to the notice dated
28.08.2023 issued U/s 149 Cr.P.C
WP(C) NO. 28950 OF 2023
Exhibit R3(g) Copy of the complainant filed before the
Director General of Police dated
05.10.2023
Exhibit R3(h) Copy of complaint filed before the
District Police Compliant Authority,
Thiruvananthapuram dated 05.10.2023
Exhibit R3(i) Photograph of the compound wall and the
gate before destruction
Exhibit R3(j) Photograph of the compound wall and the
gate after destruction.
