Abdu Rahiman vs. The District Police Chief
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Abdu Rahiman, operates a retail hardware business named 'Steal Palace'. He had permitted his friend, Shamsudeen, to conduct a steel and iron retail trading business in the same premises. Following Shamsudeen's demise, the petitioner claims to have supported his family. However, the party respondents, who allegedly formed an association, began making demands on the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that these demands led to threats and intimidation, including threats of a 'dharna' and obstruction of his business. He sought police protection from the Station House Officer, Vadakara Police Station, but no action was taken, prompting him to file a writ petition before the High Court.
Held
The Court held that the disputes between the petitioner and the party respondents were purely factual and civil in nature, falling outside the scope of intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court noted that if any agreement existed between the petitioner and the family of the deceased Shamsudeen, the party respondents or the legal heirs were at liberty to pursue their remedies through appropriate legal channels. However, the Court emphasized that they could not take the law into their own hands or cause obstruction or threats to the petitioner or his employees. The Court allowed the writ petition, confirming its interim order dated December 6, 2021. It directed the Station House Officer to continue to ensure law and order is maintained and that no breach of peace is committed by the party respondents or their associates. The Court clarified that these directions would not impede the party respondents from pursuing any legal remedies they may be entitled to against the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can intervene in disputes that are purely factual and civil in nature, particularly when police protection is sought? The petitioner argued that he was being harassed and threatened by the party respondents, necessitating police intervention and protection for his business. He contended that the Station House Officer failed to act on his request for protection. The party respondents argued that the petitioner's allegations were mala fide and incorrect. They claimed the petitioner had agreed to pay Rs. 12,00,000/- to the family of the deceased Shamsudeen, having taken over his business, and was now attempting to resile from this agreement by filing the writ petition under the guise of seeking police protection. The official respondents submitted that the police cannot intervene in civil disputes and had complied with an interim order of the Court by providing protection to the petitioner, evidenced by the absence of untoward incidents.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The petitioner says that he is engaged in retail sale of hardware under the name 'Steal Palace'; and that in the same room, he had allowed his friend Sri.Shamsudeen, to operate his own business in steel and iron retail trading.
The petitioner says that Sri.Shamsudeen unfortunately succumbed to cancer and that, though he supported his family thereafter, the party respondents, who claims to have formed themselves into an association, have started making untenable demands against him, which he could not accede to. He asserts that consequent thereto, the party respondents began to mete out threats and intimidation to him and threatened him that they will conduct 'dharna' and obstruct his business, which compelled him to prefer Ext.P4 request before the 3rd respondent – Station House Officer,
WP(C) NO. 27894 OF 2021 -3- seeking protection; but that since no action was taken thereon, he has been left without any other option but to approach this Court through this writ petition.
The afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel - Sri.R.Suneesh Kumar, were vehemently opposed by Sri.Cibi C.Cheeran – learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6, saying that all the allegations imputed against his clients are incorrect and made with extreme mala fides. He added that his clients are acting bona fide to help the family of late Shamsudeen; and that petitioner himself had offered to pay them Rs.12,00,000/-, acceding that he had taken over his business after his death. He submitted that petitioner is now attempting to resile from this agreement, by filing this writ petition to obtain orders styling it as a 'police protection' matter.
WP(C) NO. 27894 OF 2021 -4- He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
Sri.E.C.Bineesh – learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, submitted that Police cannot and have not intervened into the disputes between the parties which are squarely in the realm of civil law; but have complied with the interim order of this Court dated 06.12.2021 and have afforded adequate protection
to the petitioner
and his establishment. He submitted that this is manifest from the fact that no untoward incidents have been reported thereafter.
When the afore rival contentions are evaluated, it is evident that, on one hand the petitioner says that he is being harassed by the party respondents; while, on the other, the latter says that petitioner is resiling from the agreement which he had entered with them to pay
WP(C) NO. 27894 OF 2021 -5- Rs.12,00,000/- to the family of late Shamsudeen. Obviously, these disputations are purely factual in nature, into which this Court cannot enter, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Suffice to say, if any agreement has been entered into by the petitioner, or he has made any promise to the family of late Shamsudeen, it is upto the party respondents and his legal heirs to pursue it in terms of law and to obtain necessary orders; however, they cannot take law into their own hands or cause any obstruction to the establishment of the petitioner or mete out threats to him or his employees. In the afore perspective, I allow this writ petition and confirm the interim order dated 06.12.2021; with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent – Station House Officer, to act as per its terms in future and ensure that law and WP(C) NO. 27894 OF 2021 -6- order is always maintained, without any breach of peace being allowed to be committed by the party respondents or their men. As far as the party respondents or the legal heirs of late Shamsudeen are concerned, they are left at full liberty to invoke any legal remedy which they may be entitled to against the petitioner; for which purpose, I clarify that the afore directions will not be a bar or fetter in any manner. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv
WP(C) NO. 27894 OF 2021 -7-
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.