Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for police harassment requires clear evidence of imminent danger, absent here.

1. The petitioner, who is a senior citizen aged 78 years, has filed this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Commissioner of Police to grant protection from harassment at the hands of the 2nd respondent Station House Officer, Pazhayannur Police Station. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to afford adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner, from the hands of respondents 3 to 6. The 3rd respondent is the brother of the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 are his nephews. In the writ petition, it is alleged that the 3rd respondent and his men are not allowing the petitioner to enter into his property or to tap rubber trees and take usufructs. On 04.10.2020, at about 10.00 a.m., while the petitioner was standing in his property at Thrikkanaya to tap rubber trees, respondents 3 to 5 abused him and manhandled him. The petitioner submitted Exts.P1 and P2 complaints dated 13.10.2020 before respondents 1 and 2 seeking police protection, which was followed by Ext.P3 complaint dated 16.10.2020 before the 2nd respondent Station House Officer. Alleging inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition, seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

2. On 22.10.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, notice before admission was ordered to the respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 2. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 3 to 6. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court granted an interim order directing the 2nd respondent Station House Officer to ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioner by the party respondents.

3. Respondents 3 to 6 have filed counter affidavit, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, by contending that the petitioner is taking adornment stand against respondents 3 to 6, in order to prevent them from enjoying the fruits of the compromise recorded by this Court in FAO No.257 of 2008, based on Ext.R3(a) compromise petition. There is no threat or harassment or any illegal act against the petitioner, from the side of respondents 3 to 6. The petitioner submitted Exts.P1 to P3 complaints before respondents 1 and 2, without any bona fides, in order to harass respondents 3 to 6.

4. Along with the memo filed by the learned Government Pleader, the statement of the 2nd respondent Station House Officer is placed on record, wherein it is stated that, based on Ext.P1, the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent to conduct inquiry in the matter. On 14.10.2020, both parties were summoned to the police station. However, the petitioner did not turn up. On 19.10.2020, the 2nd respondent received Ext.P3 complaint made by the petitioner. Though the petitioner was summoned to the police station, he did not turn up. As per the statement of the 2nd respondent, the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 is in the nature of civil dispute, regarding partition of property. There is no threat or harassment from the side of the respondents, as alleged in the writ petition.

5. On 23.03.2021, during the course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 that settlement of dispute by way of mediation can be explored and both parties shall appear before the District Mediation Centre, Thrissur, on 05.04.2021. Acco