Telangana High Court
Singireddy Raji Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 21 March, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.7345 of 2024
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-
"...to issue a Writ, order or orders particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
the respondents in not registering the F.I.R. pursuant
to the complaint, dated 23.02.2024 by providing police
protection in view of Judgment and Decree in
O.S.No.134 of 2023, dated 08.01.2024 as arbitrary and
illegal and consequently issue a direction to the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take immediate action
against unofficial respondents in order to save the life
and property of the petitioner by registering the
F.I.R..."
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the
agriculture land admeasuring Ac.1.17 guntas in Sy.No.413/4
and A.0.25 guntas in Sy.No.441/ee/2, situated at Tallapally
Village, Ellanthakunta Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District. It is
the case of the petitioner that when respondent Nos.4 to 9 have
interfered with his possession and caused inconvenience for his
enjoyment of the subject property, he was constrained to
institute a suit for bare injunction vide O.S.No.134 of 2023 on
the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajanna Siricilla and
CVBR, J
Wp_7345_2024
the said suit was decreed in his favour vide judgment and
decree, dated 08.01.2024. It is the further case of the petitioner
that even after granting injunction by the competent civil Court,
respondent Nos.4 to 9 are frequently interfering with his
peaceful possession, causing inconvenience and criminally
trespassing into the subject land as such he was constrained to
lodge a complaint, dated 23.02.2024 and according to him the
contents of the complaint reveals commission of cognizable
offence. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is
that even after receiving the said complaint, respondent No.3
has not taken any action under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and as
per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita
Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home
appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, on instructions, would
submit that except approaching the police, the petitioner has
not obtained any orders either from the Court of the Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Rajanna Siricilla, which has passed the
judgment and decree in O.S.No.134 of 2023 or from this Court
granting police protection. Since there was no specific direction
(2014) 2 SCC 1
CVBR, J
Wp_7345_2024
from the competent civil Court, the respondents-police have not
acted upon the representation submitted by the petitioner.
4. In Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi 2, the
Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
"17. Application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC lies only
where disobedience/breach of an injunction granted or
order complained of was one that is granted by the
court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which is
naturally to enure during the pendency of the suit.
However, once a suit is decreed, the interim order, if
any, merges into the final order. No litigant can derive
any benefit from mere pendency of case in a court of
law, as the interim order always merges in the final
order to be passed in the case and if the case is
ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified
automatically.
18. In case there is a grievance of non-compliance with
the terms of the decree passed in the civil suit, the
remedy available to the aggrieved person is to approach
the execution court under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC which
provides for elaborate proceedings in which the parties
can adduce their evidence and can examine and cross
examine the witnesses as opposed to the proceedings in
contempt which are summary in nature. Application
under Order 39 Rule 2- A CPC is not maintainable once
the suit stood decreed. Law does not permit to skip the
(2012) 4 SCC 307
CVBR, J
Wp_7345_2024
remedies available under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC and
resort to the contempt proceedings for the reason that
the court has to exercise its discretion under the 1971
Act when an effective and alternative remedy is not
available to the person concerned. Thus, when the
matter relates to the infringement of a decree or decretal
order embodies rights, as between the parties, it is not
expedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction,
in essence, as a mode of executing the decree or merely
because other remedies may take time or are more
circumlocutory in character. Thus, the violation of
permanent injunction can be set right in executing the
proceedings and not the contempt proceedings. There is
a complete fallacy in the argument that the provisions
of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC would also include the case of
violation or breach of permanent injunction granted at
the time of passing of the decree."
5. In Raja Venkateswarlu and another vs. Mada
Venkata Subbaiah and another 3, the Hon'ble Apex Court
while dealing with the similar issue, upheld the orders passed
by the Executing Court granting police protection under Section
151 of C.P.C for implementation of injunction decree stating
that it is not necessary that the person seeking police protection
must file an application only under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC.
(2017) 15 Supreme Court Cases 659
CVBR, J
Wp_7345_2024
6. In the instant case the suit filed by the petitioner seeking
perpetual injunction was decreed. A party, who obtained
perpetual injunction decree, and is complaining of violation of
such orders, may file not only an execution petition under Order
XXI Rule 32 CPC, but also an application seeking Police
protection under Section 151 CPC from the competent Civil
Court. Since there is a specific remedy available under Order
XXI Rule 32 of CPC, the petitioner has to avail such remedy, if
he feels that unofficial respondents are obstructing him from
enjoying the fruits of the decree or if there is any disobedience
or breach of the judgment and decree.
7. In view of the above remedy available to the petitioner,
this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought by the
petitioner seeking police aid for implementation of the judgment
and decree dated 08.01.2024 passed in O.S.No.134 of 2023 on
the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajanna Siricilla.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate
application before the competent Civil Court, in accordance with
law. If such application is filed, the learned Principal Junior
Civil Judge, Rajanna Siricilla, shall dispose of the same, in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably,
CVBR, J
Wp_7345_2024
within a period of three (3) months from the date of filing of
such application.
8. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed
of. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
21.03.2024
gkv
