Prasad and Thulaseedas vs Sub Inspector of Police and Others

R. Basant, J.—Petitioners have come to this Court complaining about harassment by the police and simultaneously seeking police protection. Prayer is to issue directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The dispute is about construction of a compound wall on the southern side of the Petitioners'' property. On the southern side is admittedly a pathway. According to the Petitioners, there existed a compound wall all along. The Petitioners want to reconstruct the damaged portion of the compound wall. When the Petitioners attempted to do the same, illegal obstruction was raised by Respondents 3 to 5, who are local persons/neighbours. At their instance, the police is vexing and harassing the Petitioners. The dispute is one which is purely civil in nature. Parties are already before the civil court. The Petitioners have filed O.S. No. 255 of 2010. Interim orders have been passed by the learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Paravur. Police have no business to interfere with the civil dispute now. The police may be directed to afford protection to the Petitioners to complete reconstruction of the compound wall. It is with these assertions that the Petitioners have come to this Court.

All Respondents are served. Respondents 4 and 5 have appeared through a counsel. They submit that the Petitioners are not acting bona fide. It is their case that the Petitioners are attempting to construct the compound wall reducing the width of the pathway. It is only because of that, that the local persons/neighbours are raising objections against construction of the compound wall. According to them it is not a case of attempting to restore the compound wall. The compound wall is proposed to be reconstructed by trespassing into the pathway on the south. It is only because of that, the local persons/neighbours are raising objections.

The learned Counsel for Respondents 4 and 5 submits that, at any rate, this is not a matter in which this Court should choose to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Parties are already before the civil court with the same subject matter. In fact the Petitioners have filed a petition before the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, seeking police protection to complete the construction of the compound wall. No orders have been passed. With that petition pending before the court below, the Petitioners have unnecessarily rushed to this Court. The civil court may be left to take a decision in the matter. No orders under Article 226 of the Constitution are now necessary, submits the learned Counsel for Respondents 4 and 5.

The learned Counsel further points out that the plan appended to the building permit to construct the compound wall suggests that the pathway on the south has a width exceeding 260 c.m; whereas the present width of the pathway as ascertained by the Commissioner is only 1.77 m. In any view of the matter, no directions under Article 226 of the Constitution are liable to be issued, argues the learned Counsel for Respondents 4 and 5.

In reply the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Respondents are attempting to capitalise on an inadvertent mistake while recording the width of the pathway in the plan. The actual width is only 160 and 170 metres at either end. Mistakenly it is shown as 260 and 270 c.ms. The attempt to make capital out of it is unjustified, as a revised plan has been submitted. The obvious error has subsequently been corrected, it is submitted.

We have considered all the relevant inputs. We note that the civil court is already seized of the matter. It is not disputed that a petition for identical relief is pending before the civil court. In these circumstances, no directions, we are satisfied, deserve to be issued. The parties must raise their contentions before the civil court and seek appropriate orders.

The learned Government Pleader on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 submits that the police have no intention to intervene in the civil dispute. The parties must abide by the orders of the civil court and the police shall act only in accordance with law. Parties may be directed to seek appropriate direction before the civil court, submits the learned Government Pleader on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2.

We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no directions under Article 226 of the Constitution are liable to be issued. The Petitioners simultaneously complain of police harassment and seek directions for protection. We need only mention that the parties must seek orders from the civil court.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that I.A. No. 327 of 2011 is pending before the learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Paravur. Early orders are necessary in that petition. Appropriate directions may be issued, it is submitted.

We are satisfied that this petition can now be dismissed with appropriate directions.

In the result:

a) This Writ Petition is dismissed;

b) We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the police shall not intervene in the civil dispute and shall not in any way harass the Petitioners by interfering in the civil dispute between the parties;

c) We direct the learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Paravur to dispose of I.A. No. 327 of 2011 in O.S. No. 255 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible - at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date on which a copy of this judgment is placed before the learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Paravur.

Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.