Upgrad LLM

civil court judgment implementation protection by police

Faculty

Dear beloved Experts and members,

 

I have seen a Madras High Court Judgment, that the person who is having civil court judgment ,to implement the civil court judgment the person can approach the police for protection, the police has to give protection to implement the Judgment. the police officials should not ask the person to get direction from the court . because previously  some  police officials are escaping and telling that this is civil matter ,get court direction then we will involve. 

This judgment was ordered by the Hon'ble Justice C.T.SELVAM on 12.03.2014

in Crl.O.P.No.8924 of 2013

The link is below

http://judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/qrydisp.aspx?filename=200540

The full Judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

 

DATED  12.03.2014

 

CORAM

 

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

 

Crl.O.P.No.8924 of 2013

 

 

1.Radhika Sri Hari

 

2.S.Sreekanth .. Petitioners

Vs

 

1.The Commissioner of Police

Coimbatore City, Coimbatore

 

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police

Coimbatore South Podanur

Coimbatore

 

3.The Inspector of Police

B-7, Ramanathapuram Police Station

Puliakulam, Ramanathapuram

Coimbatore-641045

 

4.Kaliammal

5.Palaniammal

6.Dhanapakkiyam@Pappathi

7.Muruganathan

8.Nagarathinam

9.Arumugham

10.Sakunthala

11.Selvaraj

12.Rajendran

13.Hamsaveni

respondents 4 to 13 impleaded as per the order of 

this court dated 15.04.2013 in Crl.O.P.No.8924/13 ..respondents

 

 

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to provide necessary police protection to the petitioners to put up fresh barbed wire fence at the damaged places in the property situate at Ramanathapuram hollow block, Coimbatore district in SF.No.New.No.9707, Old Nos.1853/1A, 1854/1, 1855 and 1860/1 measuring 3 acre and 39981 sq.ft.

For Petitioner :    Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel for

    Mr.B.Baskaran

 

For Respondents :    Mr.C.Emalias, APP for R1 to 3

 

    Mr.L.Baskaran for R4 to 13

 

O R D E R

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code seeking a direction to the respondents to provide necessary police protection to the petitioners to put up fresh barbed wire fence at the damaged places in the petitioner's property.

 

2. Learned Senior counsel for petitioners took this court through the typed set of papers to inform that in various proceedings before civil courts, the right to property of the petitioners stands secured and it culminated in judgment of this court in S.A.No.855/1977 by order dated 30.09.1981. A Special Leave Petition preferred against such order was dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Learned Senior counsel referred to order of this court to the order in W.P.No.7356 of 2012 dated 31.07.2012, wherein this court held as follows:

"7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents 1 to 4, to earmark the boundaries of the land, as per the sale deed dated 6.6.1943, after notice to both parties and if necessary, with assistance of the police. No costs. Consequently, the above Mps are closed."

Pursuant to such order, demarcation of property was done by the Town Sub Inspector of Survey, Coimbatore East. The contesting respondents being dissatisfied with such demarcation moved Contempt petition No.1444 of 2012, wherein while dismissing the same under orders dated 10.01.2013, this court held as follows:

"6. If the petitioners are still aggrieved, the remedy open to them is to institute appropriate civil suit and get appropriate declaration and not to pursue the contempt. The contempt petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands dismissed."

It is submitted by learned Senior counsel that the petitioners attempt to place a fresh fence over the property specifically earmarked as belonging to them is being interfered and thwarted by the contesting respondents. Learned Senior counsel for petitioner submits that an extent of 2106 square feet demarcated as a share of the contesting respondents registered under compromise proceedings in E.P.No.94 of 1984 will not be interfered by the petitioners. 

 

3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that this court in dismissing the contempt petition has left it open to them to initiate appropriate civil suit and obtain appropriate declaration. As the matter in issue arises out of civil disputes between the parties, this court would direct the petitioner to seek remedy through civil process. In the circumstances, this court would not issue direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 

 

4. Learned counsel for contesting respondents referred to the judgment of the Apex court in Moran M.Baselios Marthoma Mathews II v. State of Kerala, (2007) 6 SCC 517, wherein it has been held as follows:

"15. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a manifest error in going into the disputed questions of title as also the disputed questions in regard to the rights of a particular group to manage the Churches, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, particularly, when such questions are pending consideration before competent Civil Courts. We, therefore, are of the opinion that any observation made by the High Court should not influence the Courts concerned 7in arriving at their independent decisions and in respect thereof, all contentions of the parties shall remain open.

 

     16. We are making these observations, particularly in view of the fact that even a large number of persons who have filed different suits in different Courts of law were not parties before the High Court in the writ petition and thus any observation and findings of the High Court would otherwise also not be binding on them."

 

5. We have considered the rival submissions. We have also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

6. The reliance placed on decision referred to by the learned counsel for contesting respondents is misplaced. While it is true that pending civil proceedings, this court would not interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the instant is a case, wherein the right of the petitioners to property stand crystallised under order in S.A.No.855 of 1977. Pursuant to subsequent proceedings in W.P.No.7356 of 2012, the property of the petitioners came to be demarcated under proceedings of the appellate authorities viz Town Sub Inspector of Survey, Coimbatore East. Such official act has been challenged by way of contempt proceedings and the same stand dismissed. It is not the contention of learned counsel for contesting respondents that pursuant to the order in Cont.P.No.1444 of 2012, they have not moved any civil forum. However, he would submit that contesting respondents are poor people pitted against the affluent persons in whose aid the police agency also is working.

 

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court considers it appropriate to refer to report of the committee constituted by the Government in G.O.(3D) No.42, Home dated 30.06.2008 towards review of the system of treating complaints relating to money and land matters and to suggest a legally acceptable methodology. The report of such committee touching upon several issues, was accepted by Government. Having done so, under G.O.Ms.No.1580 Home (POL.VII) Department dated 24.11.2008, the Director General of Police was required to circulate the report along with the 14 point guidelines annexed to such Government order to police officers/stations for appropriate adherence. Under C.No.43/CRB/CSP/2008 dated 08.12.2008, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Sub-Urban, has caused communications to all Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and Inspector of police for necessary action. Guideline 11 issued by the committee reads as follows:

"11. When police protection is sought for the implementation of a civil court order it should be given readily. Police should not insist on a specific court direction to give police protection."

 

8. What is informed above makes clear that the petitioner would be entitled to police protection as prayed for. Criminal original petition is allowed.  There will be a direction to respondents to provide police protection to the petitioners for a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order towards enabling them raising fresh barbed wire fences on their property. The same will be at the cost of the petitioner. 

12.03.2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.T.SELVAM, J.,

 

kpr

 

 

To

1.The Commissioner of Police

Coimbatore City, Coimbatore

 

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police

Coimbatore South Podanur,Coimbatore

 

3.The Inspector of Police

B-7, Ramanathapuram Police Station

Puliakulam, Ramanathapuram,Coimbatore-641045

 

4.The Public Proseuctor

Madras High Court, Chennai

********************************************

Those who are having civil court judgment , you can make use of this order

 

 

 

 

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

CrPC MASTERCLASS!     |    x