Mohammed Mustafa and Bush Ahammed Moopan vs The Commissioner of Police, The Sub Inspector of Police and K.K. Basheer

K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide adequate and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioners and their family members and staff as against the threat of the 3rd respondent and his men.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling the 1st and 2nd respondents to take appropriate legal actions against the 3rd respondent pursuant to Ext.P6 and P7 complaints.

Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:

First petitioner''s father is the absolute owner of a Shopping Mall. His father is abroad and he is managing the affairs of the said Shopping Mall with the assistance of the second petitioner who is his brother-in-law. It is stated that there are various civil litigations in regard to the basement floor of the Mall. There are allegations of threat by the third respondent. It is also alleged that the third respondent and his men committed mischief by removing the flex boards erected by the first petitioner in the said Shopping Mall and also committed theft of electricity. First petitioner filed Ext.P6 complaint on 14.6.2010 and he has also submitted Ext.P7. There are also allegations of threat to the staff that if they come to the premises, they will be handled appropriately.

A Counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent to which a Reply Affidavit also is filed. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties including the learned Government Pleader.

Admittedly, a civil suit is filed by certain parties against the father of the first petitioner and an interlocutory order has been obtained by the plaintiffs in the said case. It is further brought to out notice that the third respondent instituted a Suit against the petitioners and that is pending consideration. The first petitioner has also filed a Suit against the third respondent and the said Suit is also pending. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that on a complaint by the third respondent, a Crime has been registered against the first petitioner.

We take note of the following paragraph in the Counter Affidavit filed by the third respondent:

The petitioners are not entitled to get any police protection on the basis of the unfounded allegations in the Writ Petition. It is obvious that the attempt of the petitioners is only to somehow convert the legitimate civil dispute that exists between us into one of a criminal nature and thereby put me in a position where I cannot complete the construction as per Ext.P2. I have invested a huge amount in the project and will be put to great hardship if the petitioners'' illegal attempts succeed. No fundamental rights of the petitioners are being violated because of any action or omission on my part. I do not intend in any manner to prevent the petitioners and their men from entering the shopping mall. All I seek is to be left in peace so as to complete the construction that I am entitled to. No action is liable to be taken against me by the police pursuant to Exts.P6 and P7. There is absolutely no threat to the life and property of the petitioners, their family members and their staff from my part. The petition is only to be dismissed. On the other hand, it is I who am in need of police protection from the high handed actions of the petitioners and their men.

We also take note of the submission of the third respondent also that he has no intention to physically prevent the petitioners and their men from entering the shopping mall. It is also submitted by the third respondent that there is absolutely no threat to the life of the petitioners from the part of the third respondent. He has a case that the petitioners and their men are provoking him.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners brings to our notice the fact that the petitioners have filed Exts.P4, and P6 to P10 complaints. After having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the relief as sought for by the petitioners is not to be granted by this Court in these proceedings. We take note of the proceedings pending before various civil Courts. However, we also take note of the stand of the third respondent as referred to in paragraph 6 of the Counter Affidavit which we have extracted. We further direct that if the petitioners have filed complaints including complaints produced before this Court disclosing commission of any cognizable offence, the second respondent shall proceed to enquire into the same and take action in accordance with law. Subject to this, the parties are referred for adjudication of the lis between them before the competent Forum and the competent Forum shall proceed to decide the lis untrammeled by anything contained in this Judgment. It is open to the petitioners to bring to the notice of the second respondent commission of any cognizable offence by the third respondent in which case the second respondent shall take action in accordance with law.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.