Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45602
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
MOHAMMED ROSHAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 10331 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SHRI.K.VIJAYAN, SMT.NAMITHA RAJESH, SMT.NITHYA V.D., SHRI.ABHILASH T., SMT.RESHMI SASIDHARAN
For the Respondents: SMT.ANIMA. M, SMT.BHANU THILAK, SHRI.S.R.PRASANTH, SMT.FATHIMA RINSHA T.P., SHRI.VISHNU.R
Ultimately, civil disputes regarding partnerships and property rights cannot warrant police protection and must be resolved through civil litigation.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Civil dispute and police protection - The petitioner, having purchased land and constructed an industrial unit, sought police protection for removing an iron structure obstructed by the 4th respondent. The court found that this was a civil dispute not warranting police intervention. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 9)
(B) Partnership Law - The 4th respondent contended substantive investment in the partnership and alleged cheating by the petitioner. Issues of partnership rights and obligations were discussed but did not change the civil nature of the dispute. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner encountered obstruction from the 4th respondent after deciding to shift the industry, prompting a civil suit in which preliminary injunction was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The existence of a civil suit indicates a need for resolution through civil procedures rather than criminal intervention.
Issues: Whether police protection is appropriate in civil disputes regarding partnership and property rights.
Ratio Decidendi: A civil dispute is not suitable for police protection; such matters must resolve through civil litigation.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and rights to remove structures. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. partnership disputes and ongoing civil litigation. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's role in civil disputes, emphasizing civil resolution. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. civil disputes are dismissed for lack of grounds for police intervention. (Para 9) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner states that the petitioner purchased a land from the 4th respondent, constructed an industrial unit and appointed the 4th respondent as the Manager. Subsequently, the petitioner found some misconduct on the part of the 4th respondent in running the industrial unit. The petitioner, therefore, decided to shift the industry from Sasthamcotta to Meyannoor. As a part of this decision, the stock and machinery from the industry have been removed and shifted to Meyannoor. When the petitioner started to remove the iron structure of the building, the 4th respondent is obstructing.
2. The petitioner would submit that the petitioner being the owner of the property as well as the building, has a right to remove and take away the iron structure. The 4th respondent has no business in the matter. Though the petitioner filed complaints before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent has not extended assistance for removing the iron structure. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 4 and 5. On behalf of respondents 4 and 5, it is submitted that the 4th respondent was a partner in the industry which was started along with the petitioner. The 4th respondent has invested in the industry. The petitioner is cheating the 4th respondent by taking away all the stock, machinery and even the building.
4. The 4th respondent has therefore filed O.S.No.22 of 2024 before the Sub Court, Karunagapally. Though the interim injunction application has been dismissed, the 4th respondent has filed C.M.A. before the Appellate Court and the same is pending. In the circumstances, if the petitioner is granted police protection for the removal of the iron structure, the 4th respondent will be put to undue hardship.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel representing respondents 4 and 5 and also the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3.
6. The contention of the petitioner is that he has purchased land of the 4th respondent and has constructed an industrial building and installed machinery. According to the petitioner, he appointed the 4th respondent as the Manager. Subsequently, the petitioner has decided to shift the industrial unit to Meyannoor. The 4th respondent is obstructing the same.
7. The 4th respondent would contend that the industrial unit at Sasthamcotta is a partnership venture and the 4th respondent has made substantial investment in the partnership. Violating the conditions of the partnership, the petitioner is taking away the stock, machinery and even the structure of the industrial unit.
8. It is evident from the pleadings that there is a Civil Suit pending before the Sub Court, at the instance of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has sought interim injunction order which was declined. Against that order, C.M.A is pending before the Appellate Court.
9. Considering the afore facts, I am of the view that what is involved in the writ petition is a civil dispute for which police protection cannot be granted. The writ petition is hence dismissed.
