VINEETHA SKARIA Vs. S I OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.