RADHAMANIAMMA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs :

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows :- The petitioner is a Widow. The 4th respondent is the son of the petitioner. The petitioner got absolute title, possession and enjoyment of 1 Acre 16 cents of property and a residential building by virtue of a Will executed by her parents. From the above property, the petitioner sold 40 cents of property to third party, 10 cents of property was given to her son, the 4th respondent and the remaining 66 cents of property and the residential building comprised in Re-sy.No:243/1 of Kulakkada Village was executed in favour of the petitioner's daughter towards her share by virtue of a Will before her marriage. The 4th respondent was conducting Tyre Trading business at Puthoor. He entered into marriage with his lower without the knowledge of the petitioner and left from the station, lost his business. Since the recovery proceedings were initiated by the Bank for the loan availed for his Tyre business, the petitioner filed O.S.No.210/2010 before the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara. Suppressing the material facts, the 4th respondent filed O.S.No.483/2012 before the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara and obtained Ext.P1 injunction Order, the petitioner being filed application to vacate the order. Now on the guise of Ext.P1 order, respondents 1 to 3 are insisting the petitioner to permit the 4th respondent and his family to reside along with the petitioner in the family house. The 4th respondent is having much political clout and influence in the bureaucracy and Police Department indulging in nefarious activities against the petitioner. The 4th respondent and his family are not residing along with the petitioner, they are residing separately. Going by Ext.P1, the proceedings are pending before the competent Civil Court and in the absence of any order from the Court to permit the 4th respondent and his family to reside along with the petitioner, the respondents 1 to 3 have absolutely no jurisdiction to interfere with the matter. So the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) WE dispose of the writ petition as follows :- We only permit that the police officers can interfere on the basis of complaint, disclosing commission of cognizable offence and they will be free to investigate the matter in accordance with law and the police will not interfere otherwise in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent.