The main legal point established in the judgment is that when police protection is sought for the implementation of a civil court order, it should be given readily, as per the guidelines issued by the government.

1. 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 •in 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