Kerala High Court
Nimil K.K vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:16207
W.P.(C)No.6545 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 6545 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
NIMIL K.K
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O RAMESHAN K.K, THUTHIYOOR, CONFIDENT INDUS
GROPU, MLA ROAD, THRIKAKKARA P.O, COCHIN SPECIAL
ELECTRONIC ZONE, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682037
BY ADVS.
RAMEEZ NOOH
AMIN ALI ASHRAF
FATHIMA K.
SHAFNA SINU
DANIC ANTONY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HOME
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, PARAKATTA, VIDYANAGAR-
ULIYATHADKA ROAD, KUDLU, KASARAGOD., -., PIN -
671124
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHANDERA POLICE STATION, CHANDERA, KASARAGOD
PIN-, PIN - 671310
2025:KER:16207
W.P.(C)No.6545 of 2025
2
4 KUNHIRAMAN .K
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O PATHRAVALAPPIL RAMAN, KANNAKI NADAKA VEDHI,
VANITHA KOOTTAYIMA KOTTAMBATH HOUSE,
KANNANKAI.-, PIN - 671313
BY ADV.
GP SMT K B SONY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:16207
W.P.(C)No.6545 of 2025
3
C.S.DIAS,J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 6545 of 2025
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to direct the 3 rd
respondent to afford adequate police protection to
the life and property of the petitioner and his men
from the threats of the 4th respondent and his men
for facilitating smooth transit of valuable properties
of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner had entered into Ext.P1
agreement with the 4th respondent, to conduct an
Aqua Exhibition from 15.12.2024 to 31.01.2025. The
petitioner had constructed several structures for the
purpose of the exhibition. The petitioner and the 4 th
respondent agreed to share the profits of the
exhibition. The 4th respondent had provided the
2025:KER:16207
petitioner Rs.20,00,000/- as advance for the
exhibition. After the exhibition got over on
31.01.2025, the 4th respondent informed the
petitioner that he had incurred loss in the business.
Therefore, he cannot pay the amount as per
conditions in Ext.P1 agreement. The 4th respondent
also demanded the petitioner to refund the advance
of Rs.20,00,000/-. The demand of the 4th respondent
is unreasonable. On 14.02.2025, when the petitioner
went to the exhibition site to remove his materials,
the 4th respondent and his associates physically
obstructed the petitioner's workers. The petitioner
immediately submitted Ext.P3 complaint before the
3rd respondent. The petitioner is apprehending
danger to his life and property at the hands of the 4 th
respondent and his men. The 3rd respondent has not
taken any action on Ext.P3 complaint. The inaction
2025:KER:16207
on the part of the 3rd respondent is and arbitrary.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned Government Pleader submitted
that, as the dispute between the petitioner and the
4th respondent is civil in nature and is covered by
Ext.P1 agreement, the 3rd respondent has refrained
from interfering in the dispute. The petitioner's
remedy is to approach the Civil Court for the
redressal of his grievances.
5. In Padmanabhan N V. State of Kerala
(2024 KHC Online 7177), the Division Bench of this
Court has held as follows:
"6. Police protection cannot be asked for
issues that fall within the jurisdiction of civil
courts, particularly when it involves resolving
private disputes between parties. It is well
established in law that civil rights must be
adjudicated by competent civil courts. The
enforcement of civil court orders should be
2025:KER:16207
carried out in accordance with the procedures
outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
or any relevant statute that establishes the
appropriate forums for such matters.
xxx xxx xxx
8. Seeking and employing a police
force cannot be a means to sidestep the need
for dispute resolution in competent courts.
Invariably, such directions are sought invoking
Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
6. On an analysis of the facts and materials on
record, and finding that the parties are governed by
Ext.P1 agreement and further that the ownership of
the materials covered by Ext.P1 are disputed by the
4th respondent, I am of the view that the 3 rd
respondent is not the competent authority to resolve
the disputes. In fact, the 3rd respondent is justified
from refraining to interfere in the dispute between
the parties. Therefore, it would be up to the
petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court and
workout his remedies, in accordance with law.
2025:KER:16207
Nonetheless, the 3rd respondent shall ensure that
law and order is maintained in the locality.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
SCB.25.02.25.
2025:KER:16207
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6545/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH
RESPONDENT, DATED [NIL]
Exhibit-P2 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF SOME OF THE
UNDERWATER TUNNEL AQUARIUM, MERMAID-
SCUBA DIVING AQUARIUM, AND TANKS
CONSTRUCTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE
EXHIBITION
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
15.02.2025 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
