Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 20630
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
GIRI GOPINATH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6995 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.D.JAYAKRISHNAN, SHRI VIJAYKRISHNAN S. MENON, SHRI.M.R.RADHAKRISHNAN, SHRI.VIVEK NAIR P., SHRI.G.GOWARDHAN, DEV G. NAIR, SHRI.K.S.ARAVIND, SMT.GARGI RAMACHANDRAN, SMT.NADIYA K.M., SHRI.SHIBU S., SHRI.SONE SALIM
For the Respondents: SMT. AMMINIKUTTY K., SR.GP
Police cannot interfere in a civil dispute unless there are legitimate complaints necessitating action.
Headnote:The petitioner sought restraining directions against the police from interfering in a civil dispute over property and alleged harassment. The respondents asserted no such harassment was intended. The court concluded that there was no intention by the police to harass the petitioner, providing clarity on lawful actions regarding civil disputes. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over property ownership. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. police's assertion of no harassment. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's directive on police conduct. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
Petitioner seeks for a direction restraining respondents 3 and 4 from interfering in the civil dispute regarding petitioner's residence and from attempting any forcible or illegal eviction of the petitioner from his own residence. Petitioner also seeks for a direction to cease all forms of harassment, intimidation and unlawful interference against them.
2. Petitioner claims to be the owner of 50 cents of land in Re-Survey No.2/4-2 of Block No.2 of Karuvatta Village. It is alleged that there is a civil dispute between the neighbouring property owners, which are pending as OS No.140 of 2025 and O.S.No.320 of 2025 both before the Munsiff Court, Haripad. Petitioner alleges that despite the pending civil disputes, police are harassing them regularly.
3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the police have never harassed the petitioner, but pursuant to the receipt of a complaint filed by Sri.Bhaskaran, a neighbour of the petitioner, they merely conducted an enquiry about it. It was also submitted that the police have no intention to harass the petitioner.
4. Since the respondents have already submitted that they have no intention to harass the petitioner which submission is recorded, nothing further survives.
Nevertheless, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the the respondents not to harass the petitioner on the basis of any civil dispute pending between the petitioner and his neighbour. It is clarified that this order shall not stand in the way of the police registering any crime based on any complaint or from initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
