Vineetha Skaria and Prasad vs S.I. of Police and Others

R. Basant, J.—The Petitioners, spouses, have come to this Court complaining of harassment by the police. The grievance of the Petitioners is that Respondents 1 to 4, under the influence of Respondents 5 and 6, are interfering in the property dispute between the Petitioners and Respondents 5 and 6.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the 1st Petitioner has secured Ext.P10 order from the Family Court, which restrains the Respondents therein, including Respondents 5 and 6 herein, by a temporary order of injunction from interfering with the right of the Petitioner to possess and enjoy the property scheduled as item No. 2. The grievance of the Petitioners is that notwithstanding the said order, the police are interfering in the property dispute between the Petitioners on the one hand and Respondents 5 and 6 on the other. Police have no business to interfere with the dispute between the Petitioners and Respondents 5 and 6. Interference and consequent harassment by the police may be abated by issuing appropriate directions under Article 226 of the Constitution, prays the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

Respondents 5 and 6 have entered appearance through a counsel. Ext.P10 order of injunction is accepted. It binds Respondents 5 and 6. They want to challenge that order. An appeal has already been filed. No interim order is passed by this Court exercising jurisdiction u/s 19 of the Family Courts'' Act. Orders are sought. The learned Counsel for Respondents 5 and 6 submits that Respondents 5 and 6 shall abide by Ext.P10 order and shall not in any way cause harassment to the Petitioners.

The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that Ext.P10 order was passed only on 11.04.2011; whereas this Writ Petition was filed as early as on 30.03.2011. The order that was in force from 18.02.11 to 11.04.11 was Ext.P5 order, which modifying an earlier order of injunction, only directed maintenance of status quo. After the said order Ext.P5 was passed, allegations were raised by Respondents 5 and 6 that the Petitioners herein were causing damage and destruction to the property in violation of Ext.P5 order. On receipt of the complaint, police had called the parties and directed them to scrupulously comply with the order of the civil court and not take law into their hands. This is being misinterpreted as harassment and vexation. The police is now aware of Ext.P10 order passed. There shall be no further action on the part of the police against the Petitioners since they have secured a valid order of injunction. Until the order of injunction stands, police shall not interfere in the dispute between the parties.

We have gone through the sequence of events. We find merit in that submission of the learned Government Pleader. We accept the undertaking of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4 that in the light of Ext.P10 order, police shall not in any manner intervene in the civil dispute between the parties.

Accepting the submission of the learned Government Pleader, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

We make it clear that we have not intended to express any opinion on the correctness, acceptability or maintainability of Ext.P10 order. It shall be open to the parties to raise appropriate contentions before the appellate court.

ORDER

Reply affidavit has been filed by the Petitioners to the counter affidavit filed by Respondents 5 and 6.

For hearing and disposal, call finally on 31.05.2011.