Leena V.P. v. District Police Chief Kannur; Circle Inspector of Police, Payyannur; Sub Inspector of Police, Peringome; Madhusoodanan P.V.; Manoj Kumar; Remani.K.; Dhanesh.K.; Vellacheri Narayanan

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 19TH ASWINA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 27403 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** LEENA V.P AGED 42 YEARS D/O.(LATE) M.NARAYANAN, KUTHIRUMMAL HOUSE, KANDANKALI, P.O.PAYYANNUR KANNUR DISTRICT -670 307. BY ADVS. M.SASINDRAN SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN 1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KANNUR, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 002 2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYANNUR, PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, P.O.PAYYANNUR,KANNUR DISTRICT -670 307. 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERINGOME POLICE STATION, P.O.PERINGOME KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 353. 4 MADHUSOODANAN.P.V., S/O. MOTTAMMAL KANNAN (LATE), PUTHIYA VEETIL, PERUMPADAVU, KARIPPAL.P.O., CHAPPARAPADAVU (VIA), VELLAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 581. 5 MANOJ KUMAR, S/O. MOTTAMMAL KANNAN (LATE), PUTHIYA VEETIL, PERUMPADAVU, KARIPPAL.P.O. , CHAPPARAPADAVU (VIA), VELLAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 581. 6 REMANI.K., W/O. MOTTAMMAL KRISHNAN (LATE), KACHERI HOUSE, PERUMPADAVU KARIPPAL.P.O. , CHAPPARAPADAVU (VIA), VELLAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 581. ## **RESPONDENTS:** 2 WP(C) No.27403/2022 7 DHANESH.K., AGED 34 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN, KACHERI HOUSE, VELLAKKAD, PERUMPADAVU,KARIPAL.P.O., PAYYANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 581. 8 VELLACHERI NARAYANAN, AGED 54 YEARS S/O. KUNHAPPAN, VELLACHERI HOUSE, VELLAKKAD, PERUMPADAVU, KARIPAL.P.O., PAYYANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 581. BY ADV SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL, R4 TO R8 SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 3 WP(C) No.27403/2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs : _“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or direction or any other writ, directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to afford sufficient protection from respondent Nos.4 to 8 to the petitioner and her family members for constructing the compound wall on the side of the property and for enjoying peaceful of their properties based on Ext.P3 order ; and_ _(ii) declare that the threatening and obstruction from respondent Nos.4 to 8 against the petitioner and her family members is illegal.”_ 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 8. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and her family members are owners of 80 cents of property in R.S.No.12/1 of Vellora Amsom, Karipal Desom, Payyannur Taluk in Kannur District. A civil suit is pending between the petitioner and her family members against respondent Nos.7 and 8 in the Writ Petition in which Ext.P3 order of injunction is passed by the Munsiff Court, Payyannur. It is submitted that even in spite of the order of injunction, the respondents are violating the 4 WP(C) No.27403/2022 order as also physically assaulting the petitioner which has resulted in Ext.P4 FIR being registered against them. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint submitted by the petitioner before the police is liable to acted upon and that adequate protection is to be granted to the life and properties of the petitioner. 4. This Court, by the interim order dated 02.09.2022 had directed the Station House Officer to see that law and order is maintained and protection is granted to the life of the petitioner from any overt acts by respondent Nos.4 to 8. It was further directed that the Station House Officer shall also see that the order of injunction passed by the competent civil court is not violated by the party respondents. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the contesting party respondents submitting that the prayer made by the petitioner is not maintainable and in case of any violation of the order of injunction, the petitioner ought to have filed the petition under Order XXI Rule 32 of the C.P.C. and that the petitioner cannot approach the police or seek the direction from this Court for protection. It is submitted that on the complaint made by the wife of the eighth respondent, a crime has been registered 5 WP(C) No.27403/2022 against the petitioner and seven other accused as Crime No.280 of 2022 of Peringome Police Station and that the said fact is not stated in the Writ Petition. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in _**Devadasan v. State of Kerala** [2005 (3) KLT 739]_ to contend that in case of any civil dispute, the disputing parties have to resolve their differences before the civil courts and a Writ Petition for police protection would not be maintainable. 6. I have considered the contentions of the parties. It is apparent that a civil suit is pending between the parties and Ext.P3 order of injunction has been passed by the competent civil court. I am of the opinion that in view of the admitted fact that Ext.P3 order is in force, the respondents cannot contend that they have any right to violate the said order or to threaten the life of the petitioner and that police protection cannot be granted even in cases where there is physical assault by the said party respondents as against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the criminal complaint lodged by the wife of the eighth respondent is later in point of time and is filed only as a counter to the FIR registered earlier on the complaint of the petitioner. Be that as it may, the police has the bounden duty to 6 WP(C) No.27403/2022 see that there is no breach of peace by either of the parties. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is only authority on the point that the civil disputes between the parties cannot be resolved by this Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, evidently the parties are before a competent civil court and an order of injunction is also passed. I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the respondents that the police cannot interfere even if there is criminal action by parties to a civil suit only because the suit is pending is completely untenable. Parties to a civil suit cannot claim any right to create law and order problems and in case of any threat or assault, protection is liable to granted by the police who are duty bound to see that law and order is maintained. In the above view of the matter, the interim order is made absolute. The petitioner shall be granted protection to their lives by the Station House Officer from any overt acts by respondents 4 to 8. It is made clear that the contentions of the parties in the civil suit are left open. Sd/- **ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** csl 7 WP(C) No.27403/2022 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27403/2022** - PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO. 2084 DATED 13.01.1977 ISSUED BY LAND TRIBUNAL, PAYYANNUR IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. - Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO. 183/2021 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR DATED 02.11.2021. - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.3.2022 IN IA.NO.2/2021 IN O.S.NO.183/2021 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR. - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE F.LR. IN CRIME NO. 279/2022 OF PERINGOME POLICE REGISTERED AGAINST THE 4 AND 5 RESPONDENTS. - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 26.04.2022 ISSUED FROM PAYYANUR COOPERATIVE HOSPITAL TO THE INJURED VIZ., KAMALAKSHI V.P. - Exhibit P5 (a) TRUE COPY OF WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 26.04.2022 ISSUED FROM PAYYANUR COOPERATIVE HOSPITAL TO THE INJURED VIZ., LATHIKA.V.P. - Exhibit P5 (b) TRUE COPY OF WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 26.04.2022 ISSUED FROM PAYYANUR CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL TO THE INJURED VIZ., LAKSHMI.M. - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 14.08.2022. Exhibit P6 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1% RESPONDENT, FOR ACKNOWLEDGING EXT.P6 REQUEST. 8 WP(C) No.27403/2022 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 13.08.2022. Exhibit P7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 13.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2" RESPONDENT, FOR ACKNOWLEDGING EXT.P7 REQUEST. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 13.08.2022. Exhibit P8 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 13.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3rd RESPONDENT, FOR ACKNOWLEDGING EXT.P8.