Police protection cannot be granted in ongoing civil disputes as it may bias the case.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners and 5^th respondent are siblings. They are fighting over a property left behind by their father. A civil suit as O.S. No.409/2024 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Ottapalam, was filed by the 5^th respondent but the temporary injunction claimed by her was declined by the Munsiff’s Court. Despite the above refusal, petitioners allege that they are not being permitted to enter their family house situated in the property that belonged to their father. Petitioners allege that in the property allotted to the petitioners as per the Will left behind by their father, the Tharavadu house is not included and therefore, the 5^th respondent cannot claim any right to possess the house. Since the petitioners are being prevented from entering into the Tharavadu house, which according to them, rightfully belongs to them and not to the 5^th respondent, they sought police assistance. As protection has not been granted, they have approached this Court through this writ petition. 2. Petitioners also allege that a criminal case has been registered against the 5^th respondent for assaulting them as FIR No.575/2025 before the Ottapalam Police Station and therefore, they apprehend threat to their life.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5^th respondent, pointing out that, in Schedule E to the Will left behind by the father, the property in which the alleged Tharavadu house is situated, has actually been allotted to her.

However, by an omission, the description of the house was not mentioned in the schedule while the survey and demarcation revealed the existence of the house in the property allotted to the 5^th respondent and therefore, the suit for partition is crucial to determine the rights of the parties. According to the 5^th respondent, the attempt of the petitioners is to obtain an order of police protection and enter into the house belonging to the 5^th respondent and therefore the police protection, ought not to be granted.

4. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the issue falls in the realm of a pure civil dispute and therefore the police has not interfered in the matter.

5. Admittedly, O.S. No.409/2024 before the Munsiff’s Court, Ottapalam, is pending between the parties. The said suit has been filed by the 5^th respondent claiming partition of the properties on the basis of the Will left behind by the petitioners’

father.

6. The question whether the house is included in the schedule allotted to the 5^th respondent, or not, or whether the house is included in the Will at all, are matters which will have to be considered by the civil court. As of now, since there is a serious civil dispute pending between the parties, granting of police protection may tilt the balance in favour of one of the parties to the suit and therefore, it is not proper to grant police protection.

7. In the decision in Padmanabhan N. v. State of Kerala [2024 (6) KLT 575] a Division Bench of this Court had observed that seeking police force cannot be a means to sidestep the need for dispute resolution in competent courts.

8. Considering the nature of disputes between the parties and since concededly the 5^th respondent is residing outside India, even the alleged threat to life of the petitioners is without any basis. Therefore, this Court has to decline the relief prayed for by the petitioners. It is however observed that, if in case, the 5^th respondent comes down to India and causes any law and order situation and if any intimation is given to the police, appropriate action shall be initiated to avert such personal threats or harm to the life of the petitioners. With the above observations, this writ pet