Kerala High Court
Global Missions India vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2024
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 4456 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
GLOBAL MISSIONS INDIA
REG. NO. L-56/L984, BOX NO.8, ELAPPARA P.O., ELAPPARA
VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
PIN - 686 501, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PASTOR T.P.
ANDREWS, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. PATHROSE,
THIRUMENIKKATTIL HOUSE, MANNAMKANDAM P.O., 200 ACRE,
MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685561
BY ADVS.
S.RANJIT (K/250/1999)
GOKUL DAS V.V.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, COLLECTORATE
P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
3 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PAMPADY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686502
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PAMPADY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686502
5 MELVIN GEORGE
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. LATE P.M. BABY, PEPPATHY HOUSE, ELAPPARA P.O.,
ELAPPARA VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.,
PIN - 686501
W.P.(C).4456 of 2024 2
6 PETER GEORGE BABY
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. P.M. BABY, PEPPATHY HOUSE, ELAPPARA P.O.,
ELAPPARA VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.,
PIN - 686501
7 SHAIJU PETER
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. PETER, VATTAMALA HOUSE, ANICKADU WEST P.O.,
MUKKALI, ANICKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 686631
SMT RASMI THOMAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).4456 of 2024 3
JUDGMENT
Global Missions India, the petitioner herein, is a society registered under
the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable
Societies Registration Act, 1955, and runs a Pentecostal Church. The petitioner
has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate and
sufficient police protection for the petitioner and its office bearers
from the illegal threats of the respondents 5 to 7 and men under
them.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 ensure
rule of law by due compliance of Ext.P4 order by the respondents 5
to 7 and others under them and to maintain law and order.
2. Short facts are as under:
Late P.M. Baby, the father of the 5th respondent, is a former Secretary
of the Mission. He was expelled from the Mission for allegedly acting against
the interests of the Mission. After his expulsion, when he persisted with his
activities and collected amounts, O.S.No.173 of 2015 was instituted before the
Munsiff Court, Peerumedu, seeking an injunction. Late P.M. Baby, in turn,
preferred O.S.No.287 of 2016 against the petitioner, raising various
contentions. The petitioner also instituted another suit for injunction as O.S
No.116 of 2018 before the Munsiff Court, Peerumedu.
3. It is contended that the suits were all tried by the learned Munsiff
and were decreed in favour of the petitioner. By virtue of the decree, late P.M.
Baby was interdicted by way of an injunction from collecting money from the
Churches, alienating the immovable properties, using the name and emblem of
the church, or acting as the Secretary of the Mission.
4. Though separate appeals were preferred, during the pendency of
the Appeal, the appellant passed away, and the appeals got abated.
5. Later, when the 5th respondent started carrying out activities
against the interest of the Mission, the petitioner approached the Munsiff
Court, Peerumedu, and instituted O.S. No.7/2023, arraying the respondents 5
to 7 and others, seeking injunction and other consequential reliefs.
6. The learned Munsiff considered the matter and issued an order of
interim injunction in favour of the petitioner, restraining respondents 5 and 6
from collecting money from the members of the petitioner and from using the
name emblem of the plaintiff church etc.
7. The petitioner's grievance is that in violation of the directions
issued by the Munsiff, amounts are being collected, and meetings are being
held by styling themselves as the Mission. It is contended that using the
emblem of the plaintiff and collecting money would attract offenses under
Sections 416,419, and 420 of the IPC. In the said circumstances, they have
preferred an application under Order XXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil
Procedure before the learned Munsiff, which is pending. However, no orders
have been passed.
8. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is stated to have
submitted Ext.P8 representation before respondents 2 to 4. It is contended
that the police are bound to invoke their powers under Section 63 of the
Kerala Police Act and initiate steps to prevent the commission of the offenses.
It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking issuance of
directions to respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate police protection to the
office bearers and to ensure the rule of law by duly complying with Ext.P4
order of injunction passed by the learned Munsiff.
9. Sri. Gokul Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
would draw the attention of this Court to the interim order passed by the
learned Munsiff and submit that the actions taken by respondents 5 to 7 are in
clear violation to the orders issued. It is submitted that the perusal of Ext.P8
representation lodged by the petitioner before the official respondents would
disclose that offences are clearly made out, and if that be the case, the official
respondents are bound to take action and prevent the commission of the
offenses. It is further submitted that the official respondents are under a
statutory duty to ensure that law and order is maintained and the orders
passed by the learned Munsiff is not violated.
10. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader controverted
the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is
submitted that the Court which granted the order of injunction can implement
it by giving consequential directions, including directions to the police
authorities to effectuate the order. It is submitted that the dispute is purely
civil in nature between two factions of a Church, and the police cannot be
ordered to interfere with the same or to act as enforcement officers of the
orders passed by the civil Court.
11. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone
through the records. I find that the petitioner has already approached the Civil
Court, and they have obtained Exhibit P4 order of injunction. It is also
admitted that complaining of violation of the interim order, they have filed an
application to prosecute the defendants under Order XXIX Rule 2A of the Code
of Civil Procedure.
12. In Krishnan B. K. V Superintendent of Police [2008 (1) KLT
892], a Division Bench of this Court has held that a person aggrieved by the
infringement of his civil rights, can move the Civil Court and get relief. If a
cognizable offence is committed and information is lodged, the police have a
duty to act in accordance with law. But, if there is a failure on the part of the
police to do that, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to approach the
High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. He has to move either
the superior officer of the police or the concerned Criminal Court under the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was further held that
the police do not have any duty to adjudicate the rival claims and give
protection to the petitioner after rendering a finding in their favour.
13. In almost identical circumstances, this Court has taken the
following view in Kunhumuhammed v. Bava Haji [1999 (2) KLT 816],
wherein it was held as follows: -
"7. x x x x When there is dispute between parties and when it is
only an interim ex parte order passed by the Munsiff which
alone is in force, this Court shall not interfere in the matter
invoking its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of
India with a direction for police aid.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
8. We are of the view that this Court shall not interfere in
matters involving civil rights with an order of police protection
on the basis of an ad interim ex parte order of the Civil Court
and that only a final order passed under R.1 or R.2 of O.39 of
the Code of Civil Procedure can be enforced with the assistance
of the police. x x x x Courts should be reluctant to grant police
protection on the basis of ex parte injunction orders, which
would only pave the way for further litigation between parties,
since the parties, on the basis of the police protection order and
with the connivance of the police, complete constructions or
commit waste or do other acts which they would not be able to
do even after final orders are passed by the Civil Court..........."
14. In Raman and Others v State of Kerala [2019 (1) KHC 169], a
Division Bench of this Court has held as under:
10...............................Even otherwise, the petitioners, who
obtained a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction from a
competent court against the respondents, are at liberty to
approach the execution court for executing the decree as
contemplated under Order XXI R.32 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. Having resorted to execution proceedings by
virtue of Ext.P6 Execution Petition, the petitioners are not
justified in insisting upon before this Court for issuance of a writ
or in the nature of mandamus directing the Police Authorities to
protect their claimed possession of the properties without
establishing their possession finally in an appropriate civil court.
15. In view of the principles laid down above, I am of the view that it
is for the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court and seek reliefs. If
the petitioner feels that the action of the 5th respondent or any other
individual discloses any offense, they are to exhaust their remedies in
accordance with law as laid down in Krishnan B.K. (supra), and it is not for
this Court to issue directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
This petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
IAP
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4456/2024
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION DATED 02.05.1984 OF THE
PETITIONER MISSIONS.
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
26.03.2022 IN O.S. NO. 173/2015, O.S. NO.
287/2016 AND O.S. NO. 116/2018 BEFORE THE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, PEERMEDU.
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
11.04.2023 IN A.S. NO.13/2022, A.S. NO.
14/2022 AND A.S. NO. 15/2022 BEFORE THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - III,
THODUPUZHA.
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2023 IN
I.A. NO.1/2023 IN O.S. NO.7/2023 BEFORE THE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, PEERMEDU.
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE
RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 AND OTHERS AS ONE
PUBLISHED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED AS I.A.
NO. 3/2023 IN O.S. NO. 7/2023 BEFORE THE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, PEERMEDU.
Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE
RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 AND OTHERS AS ONE
PUBLISHED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
22.01.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 4.
Exhibit-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT ALONG WITH
THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD.
Exhibit-P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 26.01.2024
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE PAMPADY
POLICE STATION.
