A civil dispute should not be converted into a plea for police protection without substantiated threats.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the owner of a property, the access to which is the subject matter of O.S.No.69 of 2025 before the Munsiff Court Mannarkkad. Petitioner alleges that, after obtaining an ad interim injunction order as Ext.P3, respondents 5 and 6 along with respondents 7 and 8 started threatening him and hence he apprehends serious threat to his life. Since the petitioner has no one to support him or to prevent the intrusions into his life and liberty by respondents 5 to 8, he sought assistance from the police. However, despite his request to that effect, no protection has been granted and hence the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the grant of police protection to his life as well as to his property.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 5 to 8 pointing out that the writ petition has been filed solely to seek relief in the civil dispute pending consideration before the civil court. It was also pointed out that the petitioner has not even pleaded that he was, at any point in time, attacked or apprehends any imminent danger to his life or property. According to the respondents, the attempt of the petitioner is to convert civil dispute by trying to enforce his alleged civil right into one of police protection.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8 apart from the learned Government Pleader.

4. Though the petitioner alleges that he apprehends threat to his life and property, the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8 submitted that they have no intention to cause any sort of threat nor do they have any intention to violate the interim injunction order produced as Ext.P3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions also pointed out that no instance of any threat or any serious law and order situation has been reported.

5. In the decision in Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC OnLine 7177], this Court had observed that when matters of civil disputes are pending between the parties, this Court should be loath to interfere. It was also observed that the remedy available before the civil courts cannot be converted into a petition for police protection by taking recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Since no serious threat to life and property of the petitioner is noticed and also since the contesting respondents have submitted that they have no intention to violate the interim injunction order, the apprehension of threat, as alleged by the petitioner is found to be wanting. Hence, the reliefs as claimed for is declined. However, if in the event of any law and order situation arising and if an intimation is given by the petitioner to the 4^th respondent in that regard, necessary steps shall be initiated by the said respondent without delay, to avert such a situation.

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.