AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.—The Petitioner, who is an 80 year old widow has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Article 226 to Respondents 1 and 2, Police officials under the 3rd Respondent State, to afford protection for her life and property against the contumacious, culpable and violent acts on the part of Respondents 4 and 5.
Respondent No. 4 is the daughter of the Petitioner. Respondent No. 5 is her son-in-law, who is the second husband of the 4th Respondent. The Petitioner had executed a sale deed in favour of Respondents 4 and 5. The Petitioner had approached the Civil Court for cancellation of the document. The suit has been decreed. An appeal is pending against the decision of the Civil Court, before the District Court, Thalassery as A.S. No. 35 of 2011. No interim orders have been passed in that appeal so far. It is submitted that the Petitioner is the occupant of the building in the property. According to the Petitioner, she apprehends violent conduct on the part of Respondents 4 and 5, on account of the animosity and the strained relationship between them. It is with these allegations, the Petitioner has come to this Court with this writ petition.
Respondents 4 and 5 have appeared through counsel. The existence of the civil dispute and the decision of the trial court are all accepted. According to Respondents 4 and 5, they have no intention to interfere with the property rights of the Petitioner or to cause any threat or harm to the life and person of the Petitioner. They shall strictly abide by the decision of the Civil Court. They shall not take law into their hands and precipitate any situation. However, the learned Counsel for Respondents 4 and 5 submits that the Petitioner had got access to the house in the disputed property only on 15.3.2011. The learned Counsel for Respondents 4 and 5 further submits that criminal cases have been filed by the police against the Petitioner, after completion of the investigation in at least in two cases. In these circumstances Respondents 4 and 5 submits that the prayer for police protection against them by the Petitioner is without any bonafides. It may be recorded that Respondents 4 and 5 shall strictly abide by the decision of the Civil court and they shall not cause any threat or harm to the life or person of the Petitioner. Accepting the undertaking, this petition may be dismissed, prays the learned Counsel for Respondents 4 and 5.
The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from Respondents 1 and 2 submits that, it is true that against the Petitioner also there have been criminal cases registered. Civil disputes are there between the parties. But in the perception of the police, there is no threat to the life or person of the Petitioner. No directions under Article 226 are necessary in these circumstances. If there is any threat or harm to the life or person of the Petitioner, Respondents 1 and 2 shall take necessary and proper action against Respondents 4 and 5, undertakes the learned Government Pleader.
We have considered all the relevant inputs. We conclude that issuance of directions for the protection of the property of the Petitioner is not necessary. Suffice it to say that the Petitioner and Respondents shall strictly comply with the orders of the Civil Court already passed or to be passed from time to time. No specific direction under Article 226 is necessary on that aspect.
So far as the apprehended threat to life and person of the Petitioner is concerned, we accept the submission of the learned Counsel for Respondents 4 and 5. We do further accept the submission/undertaking of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2. We are persuaded to agree that it is not necessary to issue any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution in these circumstances. Even without any direction of this Court, it is pointed out that the police shall prevent crimes and take action against the miscreants for crimes if any committed. Where exceptional reasons are there, the jurisdiction to issue specific directions under Article 226 to the police remains, to compel them to discharge their duties. We do not find any such reasons in this case.
This petition is in these circumstances dismissed. We specifically record that in coming to such a conclusion, the submissions of the learned Counsel for Respondents 4 and 5 that they shall not cause any harm to the life or person of the Petitioner as also the submission made by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2 that, if there is any threat to the life or person of the Petitioner, Respondents 1 and 2 shall take immediate necessary action, have been relied on by us heavily.