Chandrasekaran and Arumugam vs State

P.R. Shivakumar, J.—Mr.I.Paul Nobel Deva Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) takes notice on behalf of the

respondent.

Heard the submissions made on either side.

Even though this matter appears in the list with the caption ""for withdrawal"" in accordance with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for

the petitioners on the previous hearing date, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, going back from the said commitment has now come forward

with a plea for passing an order on merits in this petition.

The petitioners 1 and 2 herein had filed a suit O.S.No.184/2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Panruti in respect of 1.62.00 hectares

of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 148/O in Keehul village within the sub-registration District of Kurunjipadi and Registration District of

Cuddalore for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction.

An exparte decree was passed in the said case on 05.09.2008 as prayed for. But before, the said exparte decree was passed, the petitioners

seem to have filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 762/2008 in O.S. No. 184/2008 seeking a direction to the Inspector of Police,

Vadalur and other police personnel for giving protection to the petitioners to ensure their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

The exparte order came to be passed on 25.08.2008 in the said Interlocutory Application allowing the said petition. Under what circumstances

such a petition seeking a direction to the police to give protection was filed, is not made clear by the petitioners. From the copy of the order

passed in the above said Interlocutory Application, this Court is able to find that an Interlocutory Application praying for interim injunction had also

been filed and the respondent herein had been set exparte in the said petition also. Whether any interim injunction pending disposal of the suit had

been granted or not is not known. The affidavit filed in the present petition is also silent about it. On the other hand, paragraph 2 of the affidavit has

been prepared in such a way to make it appear that the direction to the Inspector of Police to give Police protection was obtained after the passing

of the exparte decree in the suit. But, it is obvious that the exparte decree was passed on 05.09.2008, whereas, the direction to the police to give

protection was issued on 25.08.2008 itself. If at all the order of injunction had been violated, the petitioners could have proceeded against the

persons violating the order of injunction either under Order 39 Rule 2 and Rule 2(A) of C.P.C. or under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts

Act. However, the petitioners had chosen to file a petition u/s 151 C.P.C seeking a mere order for police protection. In other words, the said

order of police protection was sought for in an attempt to execute the exparte order of injunction obtained against the defendants in the above said

suit. Many material particulars have been suppressed by the petitioners in this petition. Whether the exparte decree obtained is still in force or

whether any petition to set aside the exparte decree has been filed has not been stated in this petition. On the other hand, the petitioners on the

strength of the exparte decree seem to have lodged a complaint with the police on 17.03.2009 and then on 23.03.2009 seeking police protection.

After going through the petition and the papers produced along with the petition in the form of typed set of papers, this Court is of the

considered view that instead of approaching the trial court for executing the decree or for an order punishing the persons violating the order of

injunction, they have chosen to use the police force and even this Court as an authority for sanctioning execution of the decree obtained from the

District Munsif Court. There are omissions and suppressions of facts as indicated earlier. The power of High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C is an

extraordinary power to be used sparingly and with circumspection. The same could not be used as a means for executing the decree of a Civil

court by passing the procedure prescribed for such execution. The direction given in the Interlocutory Application prior to the date on which the

decree was passed shall have no effect after the suit itself was decreed. Therefore, once again the petitioners should have approached the trial

court by way of an Execution Petition/Execution Application for necessary remedy, instead of approaching the police in the guise of getting police

protection. Therefore, this Court is convinced that this petition deserves to be dismissed. Before, parting with the case, this Court wants to record

its disapproval of the approach made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in asking this Court to list the matter for withdrawal and then

seeking an order on merits. This court comes to the conclusion that the present petition is nothing but an abuse of process of the court and hence

the same deserves to be dismissed with costs.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. The petitioners shall pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the ""Tamil Nadu State

Legal Services Authority