AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.—The Petitioners are a mother aged 74 years and her daughter. The 3rd Respondent is the son of the first Petitioner and brother of the second Petitioner. The Petitioners pray that a direction may be issued to Respondents 1 and 2-police officials to afford protection to the Petitioners against the contumacious, culpable and violent acts on the part of the 3rd Respondent.
According to the Petitioners, an item of property belonging to the first Petitioner was assigned in the name of the second Petitioner. The 3rd Respondent, son of the 1st Petitioner, is not happy with the said conduct on the part of the first Petitioner. He is raising objections against such transfer of right. He asserts a claim that he is a co-owner in respect of the property. The 3rd Respondent has filed a civil suit claiming partition. Parties have joined issues in the said suit for partition. The Petitioners have no objection in the suit for partition being decided in accordance with law by the concerned court. The short grievance of the Petitioners is about the threat to the life and person of the Petitioners caused by the 3rd Respondent. Appropriate directions may be issued to ensure that there is no threat to the life or person of the Petitioners, submits the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
The third Respondent has been served. He has not chosen to enter appearance. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submission. The learned Government Pleader submits that in perception of Respondents 1 and 2, though there is a dispute between the Petitioners on the one hand and the 3rd Respondent on the other, there is no threat perceived by the police to the life or person of the Petitioners from the 3rd Respondent. The parties will have to get the dispute regarding the properties resolved in the pending proceedings before the civil court. In the meanwhile, if there is any sort of violence by any one, police shall take appropriate and necessary action. If the Petitioners have any complaint of contumacious and culpable conduct on the part of the 3rd Respondent threatening their life and person, such complaints, if genuine, shall be appropriately responded to by the police and the safety and security of Petitioners 1 and 2 shall be assured. No specific direction under Article 226 is in these circumstances necessary, submits the learned Government Pleader.
We do not want to embark on an enquiry about the respective right of the Petitioners and the 3rd Respondent in respect of the property. The 3rd Respondent, it is evident, asserts rights as a co-owner over the disputed property. This Court cannot authorise the police to interfere in the civil disputes between the parties. However, if there is any threat to the life or person of the Petitioners independent of the civil dispute, certainly the Petitioners are entitled for protection. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader on that aspect. We are not persuaded to issue any specific direction under Article 226.
In the result:
a. We accept the submission of learned Government Pleader on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 that threat to the life and person, if any, of the Petitioners can be complained of by the Petitioners to Respondents 1 and 2 who shall, if the complaint be genuine, take appropriate and necessary action to afford protection to the Petitioners without interfering in the civil dispute between the parties in any manner.
b. In the light of that submission, we are not persuaded to issue any further specific directions under Article 226.
c. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations.