Global Missions India v State of Kerala and others

``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV TUESDAY,THE6[TH]DAYOFFEBRUARY2024/17THMAGHA,1945 WP(C)NO.4456OF2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` GLOBALMISSIONSINDIA REG.NO.L-56/L984,BOXNO.8,ELAPPARAP.O.,ELAPPARA VILLAGE,PEERUMEDUTALUK,IDUKKIDISTRICT. - PIN686501,REP.BYITSCHAIRMAN,PASTORT.P. ANDREWS,AGED75YEARS,S/O.PATHROSE, THIRUMENIKKATTILHOUSE,MANNAMKANDAMP.O.,200ACRE, MANNAMKANDAMVILLAGE,DEVIKULAMTALUK, - IDUKKIDISTRICT.,PIN685561 BYADVS. S.RANJIT(K/250/1999) GOKULDASV.V.H. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR,HIGHCOURTOF - KERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN682031 2THEDISTRICTPOLICECHIEF OFFICEOFTHEDISTRICTPOLICECHIEF,COLLECTORATE - P.O.,KOTTAYAM,PIN686002 3CIRCLEINSPECTOROFPOLICE - PAMPADYPOLICESTATION,KOTTAYAM,PIN686502 4STATIONHOUSEOFFICER - PAMPADYPOLICESTATION,KOTTAYAM,PIN686502 5MELVINGEORGE AGED41YEARS S/O.LATEP.M.BABY,PEPPATHYHOUSE,ELAPPARAP.O., ELAPPARAVILLAGE,PEERUMEDUTALUK,IDUKKIDISTRICT., - PIN686501 ``` W.P.(C).4456 of 2024 2 ``` 6PETERGEORGEBABY AGED29YEARS S/O.P.M.BABY,PEPPATHYHOUSE,ELAPPARAP.O., ELAPPARAVILLAGE,PEERUMEDUTALUK,IDUKKIDISTRICT., - PIN686501 7SHAIJUPETER AGED44YEARS S/O.PETER,VATTAMALAHOUSE,ANICKADUWESTP.O., MUKKALI,ANICKADUVILLAGE,KOTTAYAMDISTRICT., - PIN686631 SMTRASMITHOMAS,GOVERNMENTPLEADER ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON06.02.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE 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 W.P.(C).4456 of 2024 4 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 W.P.(C).4456 of 2024 5 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 W.P.(C).4456 of 2024 6 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. W.P.(C).4456 of 2024 7 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 W.P.(C).4456 of 2024 8 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 W.P.(C).4456 of 2024 9 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 W.P.(C).4456 of 2024 10 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4456/2024`** ``` PETITIONER(S)EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit-P1 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFTHECERTIFICATEOF REGISTRATIONDATED02.05.1984OFTHE PETITIONERMISSIONS. ``` - `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-P8TRUECOPYOFTHEREPRESENTATIONDATED 22.01.2024SUBMITTEDBYTHEPETITIONER ``` W.P.(C).4456 of 2024 11 ``` BEFORETHERESPONDENTSNO.2AND4. ``` ``` Exhibit-P9TRUECOPYOFTHEPOSTALRECEIPTALONGWITH THEPOSTALACKNOWLEDGEMENTCARD. ``` ``` Exhibit-P10TRUECOPYOFTHERECEIPTDATED26.01.2024 ISSUEDTOTHEPETITIONERFROMTHEPAMPADY POLICESTATION. ```