R. Krishnamoorthy Iyer and M. Sathyanarayan v. Sub-Inspector of Police, Vadakkencherry Police Station, Palakkad and others

``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV MONDAY,THE12[TH]DAYOFFEBRUARY2024/23RDMAGHA,1945 WP(C)NO.43930OF2023 ``` ``` PETITIONERS: ``` ``` 1R.KRISHNAMOORTHYIYER AGED81YEARS S/OMRAMALINGAM(LATE)"SREENIVAS"TRCROSSROAD, - THOPPUMPADYKOCHI,PIN672005. 2M.SATHYANARAYAN AGED55YEARS S/OLATESREEDHARASHARMASREEVALSAM,KODIKKATTUKAVU, - VADAKKENCHERY,PALAKKAD,PIN678683. 3SIVARAMAKRISHAN.V*DELETED AGED67YEARS S/OVELAYUDHANAKAMPADAMHOUSE,ANJUMOORTHIMANGALAMPO, PALAKKAD,PIN-678682. *THIRDPETITIONERISDELETEDFROMTHEPARTYARRAYASPER ORDERDATED12.01.2024INWP(C)43930/2023. BYADVS. BINOYVASUDEVAN RINCYKHADER SREEJITHSREENATH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1SUBINSPECTOROFPOLICE VDAKANCHERRYPOLICESTATIONVADAKANCEHRRY, - PALAKKAD,PIN678682. 2SELVAKUMAR@BABU AGED53YEARS S/OLATERAJANETTEKRAHOUSENEARKANDANKALIPOTTA - ANJUMOORTHYMANGALAMPOALATHURPALAKKAD,PIN678682. 3R.ASOKAN S/OLATERAJANETTEKRAHOUSENEARKANDANKALIPOTTA - ANJUMOORTHYMANGALAMPOALATHURPALAKKAD,PIN678682. BYADV SRI.V.A.Johnson(Varikkappallil) SRIPMSHAMEER,GP. ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 12.02.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C)NO.43930OF2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of directions to the 1st respondent to afford police protection to the petitioners for managing the affairs of the Sree Krishna Temple, Vadakegramam, Mangalam, as has been ordered by the Munsiff Court, Alathur, in O.S No.361 of 2023. 2. Short facts are as under:- 2.1. The 1st petitioner claims to be the hereditary trustee of the Sree Krishna Temple. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the persons assisting 1st petitioner in managing the daily activities of the temple. It is contended that the temple was in ruins and by the efforts of the 1st petitioner, they have carried out extensive renovation and brought the temple to its old glory. A committee was formed to manage the affairs, and the same has received the approval of the Malabar Devaswom Board. 2.2. It is contended that the party respondents started asserting rights over the temple, though the right to manage the temple rests with the 1st petitioner and other trustees. The party respondents, claiming that they were the Committee members of the temple, started obstructing the 1st petitioner from managing the temple affairs. In the said circumstances, the 1st petitioner approached the jurisdictional Civil ``` WP(C)NO.43930OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` Court and instituted O.S.No 361/2023. The learned Munsiff granted an order of injunction restraining the defendants in the Suit from causing any disturbance or interference with the administration and day-to-day affairs of the temple as well as from causing disturbance to the property of the temple (sic). The interim order is still in force. When the party respondents continued to obstruct the functioning of the temple despite the orders passed by the Civil Court, they approached the police and lodged a complaint. Complaining of inaction, the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 2 and 3 denying the fact that the 1st petitioner is the hereditary trustee of the temple. They refer to Ext.R2(a) communication issued by the Assistant Commissioner to substantiate that no approval has been given to any trustee board. It is further submitted that if the petitioner has a grievance that the orders of injunction have been violated, it is for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, which granted the order, and seek appropriate directions. 4. Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the party respondents are persistently violating the interim order passed by the learned Munsiff and has been causing obstructions. It is contended that the party respondents have no right over the temple or to interfere with the right of the petitioners. ``` WP(C)NO.43930OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` 5. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents would initially draw the attention of this Court to Ext.P7 complaint submitted by the petitioners 2 and 3 to the Managing Trustee of the Sree Krishna Temple wherein they have stated in unmistakable terms that they are no longer in possession. He would also refer to Ext.P8, wherein mention is made about an incident that took place on 16.11.2023. It is stated that when the suit was instituted before the Munsiff Court, the plaintiff asserted that they were in possession of the temple, which assertion is at variance with Exts. P7 and P8. It is further stated that the petitioners were never in possession of the temple when the suit was instituted and the injunction order was obtained. It is further urged that in view of the law laid in **Krishnan B. K. and Another V. Superintendent of Police** [2008 (1) KLT 892], if an individual is aggrieved by the infringement of his civil rights, he can move to civil court and get relief. Relying on the law laid down in **Shaji. M.K and another v. State of Kerala and others** [2018 (3) KHC 69], it is submitted that if an injunction order is violated, the parties are required to approach the Munsiff and file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. While the petitioners assert that they are managing the temple, the respondents deny the same. The fact remains that the petitioners have already approached the Civil Court, and an order ``` WP(C)NO.43930OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` of injunction has also been obtained. It is also admitted that, complaining of violation of the interim order, they have filed an application to prosecute the defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. 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 he 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 the 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 petitioners after rendering a finding in their favor. 8. 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. ``` WP(C)NO.43930OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` ## xxxx xxxx xxxx 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..........." ## 9. 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. 10. In view of the principles laid down above, I am of the view that it is for the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court and seek relief. If the petitioners feel that the action of the party ``` WP(C)NO.43930OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` respondents or any other individual discloses any offense, they are to exhaust their remedies in accordance with the 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** ``` Sru ``` ``` WP(C)NO.43930OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43930/2023`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`Exhibit P1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO A3- 981/2023/MDB(KDS)`| ||`DATED 25-4-2023 MALABHAR DEVASWOM BOARD.`| |`Exhibit P2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TRUSTEES`| |`Exhibit P3`|`COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2`| ||`AND 3.`| |`Exhibit P4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 361 OF 2023 ON`| ||`THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT ALATHUR.`| |`Exhibit P5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED IN`| ||`FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY THE EXISTING`| ||`TRUSTEE ON APRIL 27-4-2011.`| |`Exhibit P6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-11-2023 IN IA`| ||`02/23 ( IA 2062/2023 ) IN OS NO 361 OF 2023 OF`| ||`MUNSIFF COURT ALATHUR.`| |`Exhibit P7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATE NIL ADDRESSED BY`| ||`PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.`| |`Exhibit P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5-12-2023.`| |`Exhibit P9`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE 3RD`| ||`PETITIONER ON 26-12-2023.`| |`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`|| |`exhibit R2(a)`|`True copy of the Communication dated 3/1/2024`| ||`issued from the office of Assistant`| ||`Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board.`|