Sudheer v. Station House Officer, Kottiyam Police Station, Kollam District & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **W.P.(C) No.15730 OF 2020(M)** ## **PETITIONER:** **SUDHEER, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.BAHEERKUTTY, SHAMEENA MANZIL, KANNIMEL THEKKATHIL, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KIZHAVOOR, MUKHATHALA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BINU GEORGE SMT.HEMALATHA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 571.** |**2**|**ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,**| |---|---| ||**CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN-691 572.**| |**3**|**THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 001.**| |**4**|**SHAMSUDEEN,**| ||**AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.ALIKUNJU,**| ||**VILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU,**| ||**KANNIMEL, KUNNUMPURAM,**| ||**KIZHAVOOR, MUKHATHALA P.O.,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 577.**| |**5**|**SHAJI,**| ||**AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY,**| ||**ILANJIKKAL POIKAYIL,**| ||**PANGONAM, MUKHATHALA P.O.,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691577.**| W.P.(C) No.15730 OF 2020(M) -2- **6 POOKUNJU, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.ALIKUNJU, VILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KANNIMEL, KUNNUMPURAM, KIZHAVOOR, MUKHATHALA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 577. 7 SHAJAHAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.ALIYARKUNJU, SHIYAS MANZIL, KALLUVILA, KUNNUMPURAM, KIZHAVOOR, MUKHATHALA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691577.** **R1-R3 SRI.SUNILNATH N.B., GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4-R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.15730 OF 2020(M) -3- ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner's father is the absolute owner in possession of property in Re.Sy.No.470/8 in Block No.23 of Thrikkovilvattom Village of Kollam Taluk, covered by Ext.P1 settlement deed No.3482/1982 dated 07.07.1982 of the Sub Registrar Office, Kannanallor. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner, along with his parents, wife and minor children, is residing in the property covered by Ext.P1 settlement deed. Respondents 4 and 7 are residing nearby that property. The grievance of the petitioner is the threat alleged to have been caused by respondents 4 to 7 claiming right over a pathway. According to the petitioner, respondents 4 to 7 have absolutely no right over that pathway. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint dated 21.07.2020 before the Commissioner of Police, Kollam, as evidenced by Ext.P3 receipt, and thereafter moved this writ petition before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his workers from the threat of respondents 4 to 7 and their men. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding W.P.(C) No.15730 OF 2020(M) -4- respondents 1 to 3 to take effective action on complaints given by the petitioner and provide sufficient police protection to the petitioner and his family members for peaceful enjoyment of the property covered by Ext.P1. 2. On 06.10.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice before admission to the respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 4 to 7. Having regard to the submissions advanced, this Court directed the 1[st] respondent Station House Officer to take necessary steps to ensure that none of the parties take law into their own hands. 3. The 4[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit (wrongly titled as the counter affidavit filed by the 5[th] respondent), wherein the pendency of O.S.No.733 of 2020 before the Munsiff's Court, Kollam is pointed out, which is one filed mainly seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioner and his father. In the counter affidavit, the 4[th] respondent has denied the allegations in the writ petition as to threat to law and order. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned W.P.(C) No.15730 OF 2020(M) **==> picture [19 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7. 5. The Kerala Police Act, 2011 is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the establishment, regulation, powers and duties of the Police Force in the State of Kerala and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Chapter II of the Act deals with duties and functions of Police. Section 3 of the Act deals with general duties of Police. As per Section 3, the Police, as a service functioning category among the people as part of the administrative system shall, subject to the Constitution of India and the laws enacted thereunder, strive in accordance with the law, to ensure that all persons enjoy the freedoms and rights available under the law by ensuring peace and order, integrity of the nation, security of the State and protection of human rights. Section 4 of the Act deals with functions of Police. As per Section 4, the Police Officers shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, perform the functions enumerated in clauses (a) to (s) of Section 4. As per clause (a), the Police Officers shall enforce the law impartially; and as per clause (b), the Police Officers shall protect the life, liberty, property, human rights and dignity of all persons in W.P.(C) No.15730 OF 2020(M) -6- accordance with the law. ## 6. Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police thus; "In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, well-trained and well-disciplined force or police whom it can trust, and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice. The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants." 7. In **Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary** **[(2014) 2 SCC 532]** the Apex Court held that, one of the responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the important duties the police has to perform. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the offender to the book. The Apex Court reiterated the said principle in **Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470]** . W.P.(C) No.15730 OF 2020(M) -7- 8. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7 is in the nature of civil dispute. 9. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7 would submit that the said respondents have filed O.S.No.733 of 2020 before the Munsiff's Court, Kollam against the petitioner and his father and they have absolutely no intention to take law into their own hands. They will abide by the orders, if any, passed by the competent civil court in O.S.No.733 of 2020. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that O.S.No.733 of 2020 is one filed by respondents 4 to 7 subsequent to the filing of this writ petition. 11. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; i) In case there is any threat to law and order in the locality in connection with any dispute between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7, it is for the petitioner to approach the 1[st] respondent Station House Officer with a request for police protection. ii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by W.P.(C) No.15730 OF 2020(M) -8- the petitioner, the 1[st] respondent shall take necessary action on that request, without any delay, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. iii) It is made clear that the direction contained in this judgment is only to maintain law and order in the locality and the 1[st] respondent shall not interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** bpr W.P.(C) No.15730 OF 2020(M) -9- ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO.3482/1982 DATED 7.7.1982 OF KANNANALLOOR SRO.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 21.7.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT RECEIVED THROUGH PETITIONER'S MOBILE.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL**