Manju R Kumar v State Police Chief, District Police Chief, Sub Inspector of Police, Vizhinjam Police Station, and Gods Own Country Ayurveda Resorts (Addl R4 and Addl R5)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1941** **WP(C).No. 13605 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **MANJU.R.KUMAR AGED 34 YEARS D/O. SUSHEELA, PRA 99/B, NEAR DHANLAKSHMI BANK ATM, PURAVOORKONAM,KARAKULAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695564, PROPRIETOR, GODS OWN COUNTRY AYURVEDA RESORT, CHOWARA P.O, KOVALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695501.** **BY ADV. SRI.A.S.SHAMMY RAJ** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THYCADU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.** - **2 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THYCAUDU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.** - **3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, VIZHINJAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695521.** - **4 ADDL R4, GODS OWN COUNTRY AYURVEDA RESORTS CHOWRA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VARGHESE CHAMATHIL, AGED 70YEARS, S/O.C.V.THOMAS, RESIDING AT CHAMATHIL HOUSE, 13/95 THIRUMOOLAPURAM, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 115.** - **5 ADDL R5, VARGHESE CHAMATHIL AGED 70 YEARS S/O.C.V.THOMAS, RESIDING AT CHAMATHIL HOUSE, 13/95, THIRUMOOLAPURAM, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-** W.P(C) No.13605/2019 **==> picture [17 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **689 115, MANAGING DIRECTOR, GOD'S OWN COUNTRY AYURVEDA RESORTS, CHOWARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADDL R4 AND ADDL R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30-05-2019 IN IA 1/19 IN WP(C) 13605/2019** ## **BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI P.P THAJUDHEEN SR GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C) No.13605/2019 ::3:: ## **JUDGMENT** ## **K.Vinod Chandran, J** **The petitioner is before this Court contending that there was a partnership business with one Varghese Chamathil for conducting an Ayurvedic resort in his property. The business went on smoothly for sometime, but later, there were disputes between parties and the petitioner contends that there was money due from the owner of the property. It is also alleged that at the instigation of the owner of the property, the 3[rd] respondent has been constantly harassing the petitioner and threatening her of dire consequences, unless she vacate the property. It is contended that the dispute between the property owner and the petitioner is civil in nature and there cannot be any interference of police. The learned Counsel also places reliance on** _**Ajith Associates (P) Ltd. v**_ W.P(C) No.13605/2019 ::4:: _**Commissioner of Police Ernakulam (2016 (3) KHC 280)**_ **in which this Court had declared unequivocally that the police cannot interfere in a civil case.** **2. At the outset we notice that the writ petition was filed without impleading the owner of the property who is said to be instigating the 3[rd] respondent which according to the petitioner, led to harassment at the hands of the police. By an order dated 14.05.2019 another Division Bench of this Court deprecated in the strongest terms the filing of the writ petition without the affected party in the party array. At which point alone the petitioner came forward with an I.A for impleading the affected party. Simultaneously the owner of the property has also approached with an I.A for his impleadment in the proceedings. In the context of the petitioner having not impleaded the owner of the property at the first instance and the owner having** W.P(C) No.13605/2019 ::5:: **subsequently come before this Court seeking impleadment of himself and the company he represents, we are inclined to dismiss I.A NO.2 of 2019 filed by the petitioner but we allow I.A No.1 of 2019 filed by the owner of the property and the company he represents. The Registry shall implead the petitioners in I.A No.1 of 2019 as additional respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 sought time for filing counter but, we felt in the nature of the contention raised as also the submissions made by the learned Senior Government Pleader there is absolutely no requirement to keep the writ petition pending, especially the same being one seeking an order against the police harassment when admittedly civil disputes are pending.** **3. The additional respondents admit that there was a partnership between the parties and that there was a lease agreement of the property** W.P(C) No.13605/2019 ::6:: **and the petitioner had been validly inducted therein. Subsequently there was an extension of the lease period and after the expiry it is stated that there were some disputes between the parties which were settled and part of the amounts due to the petitioner were paid up. The additional respondents also admit that there are some more amounts due to the petitioner, which was retained only for reason that the resort has incurred liability to GST; which is not yet quantified, but has to be met by the petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is dispute on that count also. We shall not enter into such disputes on money transactions between the petitioner and the additional respondents for which the parties could take recourse to legal remedies.** **4. The harassment alleged in the writ petition, is on the ground that the petitioner is threatened and the attempt is to forcefully evict her from the property. The additional respondents** W.P(C) No.13605/2019 ::7:: **however, contend that after substantial amounts were paid to the petitioner the petitioner had vacated the premises and put the additional respondents in possession. When later dispute with respect to GST liability arose, the petitioner along with some others entered into the property and forcibly took away articles belonging to the additional respondents like certificates, mobile phones, registers etc. The additional respondents then filed a complaint on which the Police registered a case.** **5. The Police also visited the premises for enquiry. The police tried to bring in a settlement, but failed. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that with respect to the encroachment and with respect to removal of property belonging to the additional respondents, police are enquiring about it. The police is looking into the complaint and will register an FIR ony if a criminal offence is discernible, is the submission.** W.P(C) No.13605/2019 ::8:: **6. As of now, there is a dispute on who is in possession of the property. Admittedly there is also a civil suit filed by the petitioner against the additional respondents in which now the additional respondents have appeared. There is a** _**status quo**_ **order granted by the civil court. In such circumstance, it may not be proper for us to say finally on the possession of the property which has to be agitated before the Civil Court. Both the petitioner and the additional respondents claim possession as of now. Police definitely cannot interfere with respect to the possession nor can they coerce anyone in possession to vacate the premises or put another in occupation of the premises. However, we notice that the claim of the additional respondents is also that certain registers and other articles were removed from their possession and definitely the police will have to investigate the same. If an offence is pointed out to the police, necessarily they will have to register an FIR and proceed with the** W.P(C) No.13605/2019 ::9:: **investigation which is not an interference in a civil dispute.** **7. Merely for the reason that a civil dispute is pending, the police do not loose their power to investigate a criminal offence, brought to their notice. We find the judgment placed before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to be inconsequential in the above circumstance. The Division Bench only said that the police cannot determine disputed questions of civil rights. We are in perfect agreement with that and hence, we directed the police not to interfere with possession unless at the instance of a Court.** **8. We hence do not find any reason to direct the police to stay their hands if there is an offence brought to their notice. We make it clear that the police would not interfere in the civil dispute as such. We are also of the opinion that the facts do not indicate any police harassment on the petitioner. In this context we specifically notice that the writ petition without** W.P(C) No.13605/2019 ::10:: **the additional respondents, the owner of the property, was filed on 09.05.2019 and the suit with the additional respondent in the party array was filed on 10.05.2019 which itself makes the conduct of the petitioner very suspect. We restrain ourselves from saying anything since the matter has to be adjudicated by the Civil Court.** **Writ Petition stands dismissed with the above observations. Parties left to suffer their respective costs.** **Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, Judge** **jma** **Sd/V.G.Arun, Judge** W.P(C) No.13605/2019 ::11:: ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON 22.4.2017 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PETITIONER AND VARGHESE CHAMATHIL.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 8.5.2018 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PETITIONER AND VARGHESE CHAMATHIL.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8.5.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT DATED 20.05.2019.**