Biju S.L. v. Director General of Police, Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942** ## **WP(C).No.520 OF 2021(L)** ## **PETITIONER:** **BIJU S.L., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. SUDARSHANAN, SANTHWANAM, PATTIYARATHUMVILA, PALACHIRA P.O, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695143, NOW RESIDING AT KAVITHA FARM HOUSE, THACHODU, MUTTAPALAM P.O, CHEMMARUTHY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695145.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE**| |---|---| ||**KERALA STATE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,**| ||**KERALA - 695010.**| |**2**|**DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, VIKAS BHAVAN,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.**| |**3**|**DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,**| ||**ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695101.**| |**4**|**STATION HOUSE OFFICER,**| ||**AYIROOR POLICE STATION, VARKALA,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695310.**| |**5**|**R. SATHEESHCHANDRAN**| ||**SANTHWANAM, PATTIYARATHUMVILA, PALACHIRA P.O,**| ||**VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695143.**| |**6**|**NITHIN**| ||**S/O. SATHEESHCHANDRAN, PATTIYARATHUMVILA,**| ||**PALACHIRA P.O, VARKALA,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695143.**| **WP(C).No.520 OF 2021** **2** **7 *ADDL.R-7 IMPLEADED** ## **RESHMI** **D/O. R. SATHEESH CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT SANTHWANAM, PATTIYARATHUMVILA, PALACHIRA.P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM.** **(ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13-01-2021 IN IA 1/2021 IN WP(C) 520/2021).** **R5-6 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR R5-6 BY ADV. SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN R7 BY ADV. B.S.SWATHI KUMAR R7 BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR N UNNI** **SRI THAJUDEEN, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.520 OF 2021** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The 5th respondent is the father-in-law, and the 6th respondent is the brother-in-law of the petitioner herein. Alleging that the party respondents are interfering with the rights of the petitioner in managing a farm purchased using his funds, he is before this Court seeking directions to the Police to afford him protection. 2. The dispute between the parties concerns the management of a farm. It is the case of the petitioner that though the farm was purchased using his funds, without his knowledge and concurrence, the document was registered in the name of his wife. According to him, he was working abroad till 2019 and only when he returned to India did he realise that he was cheated. He started occupying the farm and has been conducting agricultural activities, pisciculture and rearing livestock. When he demanded his wife to retransfer the property, she refused. Their relationship became strained as a result. He states that on 27.12.2020, the respondents 5 and 6 along with their men came to the farm where the petitioner is residing and attacked the petitioner. He lodged Ext.P1 complaint before the police. His grievance is that no action was taken. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is **WP(C).No.520 OF 2021** **4** ## before this Court seeking the following directions. a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner free from the threat of respondents 5 and 6 and their goondas. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 4th respondent to consider and take action on Ext.P1 complaint as early as possible within a time limit fixed by this Hon’ble Court. 3. The petitioner had not arrayed his wife as a party to the proceeding. She filed an application to get herself impleaded and the same was allowed. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent denying the entire contentions. According to the 5th respondent, the petitioner used to torture his wife and squandered away her money and gold. The marital relationship has become strained and the spouses have been living separately from the year 2012. It is stated that the farm is being run by his daughter and he and his son have been assisting her. It is stated that the petitioner used to trespass into the farm and attempt to cause harm to his wife. Some injuries were also inflicted as can be seen from Exhibit R5(b) wound certificate. A complaint was lodged before the police by his daughter. It is further stated that his daughter has already approached the Family Court **WP(C).No.520 OF 2021** **5** seeking return of gold and cash, for the dissolution of marriage and for the maintenance of their two children. He would also contend that the police are acting hand in glove with the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner, with the assistance of the police, has managed to sell some buffaloes and fish and have misappropriated the proceeds. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the wife of the petitioner, it is contended that the farm was purchased using her funds and with the monetary assistance offered by her father and brother. Exhibit R7(a) is the tax receipt in her favour. Exhibit R7(b) license was obtained by her from the Dy. Director of Fisheries to start an aquaculture farm. She is also rearing goats, buffaloes, and poultry. The petitioner has no right over the farm, and he has illegally trespassed into the farm and has been causing mischief. In the said circumstances, she approached the jurisdictional Magistrate and filed a petition invoking the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Magistrate has interdicted the petitioner from causing any domestic violence, either mental or physical, and he was also restrained from entering the farm until further orders. If the petitioner is granted protection as prayed for, he would continue to cause mischief. 6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit wherein he has produced a copy of his bank statement to bring home the point that the **WP(C).No.520 OF 2021** **6** money obtained by the sale of his property was deposited in the joint name of the petitioner and his wife. He would contend that the allegation of assault made by his wife is false as CCTV footage would reveal that he was in a different place when the incident is alleged to have occurred. He would contend that the petition before the Family Court was lodged only after notice in this writ petition was served on the respondents 5 and 6. It is further stated that the learned Magistrate has modified the order passed under the PWDV Act and has kept the order in abeyance. He would further state that he has already approached the Munsiff Court, Varkala and has filed a suit praying for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from trespassing into the farm. A Commissioner was appointed and he has visited the property and has prepared Exhibit P8 report which reveals that the petitioner is residing in a shed inside the farm and the entire activities are carried out by him including a training centre for Bio Flock Technology. 7. In the counter filed by the Inspector of Police, the fourth respondent herein it is stated that on enquiry it is revealed that the petitioner is carrying out the day-to-day activities of the farm for the last few months and that he is staying in the farmhouse and running the farm. He is also stated that he has given instructions to respondents 5 **WP(C).No.520 OF 2021** **7** and 6 not to enter the farm and create a law-and-order situation. It is also stated that if any law and order situation arises warranting interference by the Police, they shall intervene. 8. An additional counter affidavit has been filed by the seventh respondent. She has produced Exhibit R7(d) possession Certificate issued by the village officer to show that she is in possession of the farm. She has also produced the tax receipt as well as the renewed aquaculture license Certificate issued by the Deputy Director of Fisheries Thiruvananthapuram. 9. I have anxiously considered the submissions. The records before this Court reveals that the owner of the farm is the additional 7th respondent, the wife of the petitioner herein. The current license for carrying out aquaculture is also in her name. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner. I find from the commission report as well as the statement by the Station House officer that the petitioner is residing in the farm and has been doing some Bio Flock Training and other activities. Sri.Anoop Mulavana has also referred to some videos uploaded in the social media wherein the petitioner is shown to have a major role in the running of the farm. Sri. Swathi Kumar has disputed this contention and according to him, the petitioner has no authority or right to enter the farm and cause disruption. I find that the petitioner has **WP(C).No.520 OF 2021** **8** already approached the Civil Court seeking injunction arraying the respondents 5 and 6 and the same is pending. It is also undisputed that the wife has approached the Family Court and has filed a petition seeking divorce and return of money. The complaint filed by the wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is also pending. As held by the Apex Court in **P.R.Muralidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar** [(2006) 4 SCC 501], this Court cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. That has to be done in a properly instituted civil suit. Now that the petitioner has already approached the Civil Court seeking injunction, it is for him to pursue his remedies. It would not be proper for this Court to adjudicate on the possession of either of the parties in the facts and circumstances, lest it may cause prejudice to the other side in the proceedings pending before the jurisdictional court. 10. However, I find that the only relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to provide effective protection to the petitioner from any threats on the part of the respondents 5 and 6. It appears that the petitioner has already approached the police and has lodged a complaint. The dispute between husband and wife notwithstanding, the party respondents will not be justified in causing physical harm to the petitioner. In the same **WP(C).No.520 OF 2021** **9** manner, the petitioner also will not be justified in taking law into his own hands and in any way harming his wife. Proceedings are pending before the Family Court, the jurisdictional Magistrate as well as the Civil Court. The parties shall abide by the orders passed by the jurisdictional court. If either of the parties lodge a complaint before the police alleging commission of offence, the 4th respondent shall look into the genuineness of the complaint and shall take appropriate action. This writ petition is disposed of. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** ps **WP(C).No.520 OF 2021** **10** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 06.01.2021 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 06.01.2021.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FORWARDED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 9/1/2021** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16/1/2021 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MC 06/21 OF THE JFMC-1,VARKALA** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OS NO 15/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN OS 15/2021 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY RESHMI BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,AYIROOR POLICE STATION DATED 9-12021.** - **EXHIBIT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT TALUK HOSPITAL, VARKALA DATED 9-1-2021.** **EXHIBIT R7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 17.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEMMARUTHY.** **EXHIBIT R7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.KL/TVM/AQLI/280 DATED 11.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **WP(C).No.520 OF 2021** **11** ## **EXHIBIT R7(c)** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.393/2021 IN M.C.NO.6/2021 DATED 12.1.2021 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, VARKALA.** / TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE