SHEENA Vs. S I OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Writ Petitions being connected, they are disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) W.P.(C).No.36680/2009 is filed on the following allegations: Petitioner purchased six cents of property from one Mr. Balachandran, who is none other than the father-in-law of the second respondent and the father of the third respondent. Petitioner is in possession of that property on the date of sale and she has effected mutation in her name vide Ext.P1 tax receipt. Second respondent has filed OS.No.731/07 on 17.10.2007 before the Munsiff Court, Kollam stating that the father-in-law of the second respondent is trying to alienate the property belonging to him and also trying to put boundary by encroaching into his property, vide Ext.P2 plaint. An interim order was passed vide Ext.P3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was not aware of the dispute between the second respondent and his father-in-law and under the guise of Exts.P2 and P3, the second respondent is threatening the petitioner and her husband and the second respondent has demolished the south-western boundary wall of the petitioner's property. Petitioner is residing away from the property. There is allegation of threat. Petitioner filed Ext.P4.

(3.) THE second and third respondents in W.P.(C). No.36680/2009 are the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.32292/2010. In the said Writ Petition also, the prayer is to grant protection to the life of the petitioners and their family from any kind of threat, obstruction and violation of the injunction order affecting peaceful life of the petitioners. Petitioners therein, inter alia, relied on Ext.P1 which is the injunction order. It is stated that while the injunction order was in force, the defendant in the said Suit who is the predecessor in interest of the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.36680/2009, namely Sheena, alienated the property in favour of the third respondent who is none other than the first petitioner in the said Writ Petition. It is stated that for violation of the injunction order, a prosecution petition was filed under Order 39 Rule 2A. It is stated that the third respondent is causing obstruction and she filed a fake complaint and reference is made to the complaint in W.P.(C).No.36680/2009. THE plaint is produced as Ext.P4. THE complaint submitted before the police is produced as Ext.P5. It is stated, in fact, that as it is a civil dispute, the police has not taken any action.