Ramachandra Menon, J.
Petitioner is before this Court because of the intervention made by the police at the instance of the respondents 4 to 7, who are close relatives of the petitioner. Respondents 4 and 5 are none other than his sisters and respondents 6 and 7 are sisters-in-law. The contention of the petitioner is that there is a civil dispute with regard to the property and that the issue is pending before the Munsiff's Court, Tirur as O.S.No.167/13. In spite of the fact that the issue is still to be finalised, the third respondent has summoned the petitioner to the police station at the instance of the party respondents seeking the issue to be WP(C).16093/14 2 settled, which could not be acceded to by the petitioner. Various other instances are also mentioned in the Writ Petition, including as to the keeping of a dog in the dwelling house on the strength of Exhibit P1 licence issued by the local authority, which are not to the liking of the party respondents.
2. The learned State Attorney submits on instructions that, a complaint was received from the party respondents to the effect that the petitioner had attempted to encroach into their property and to assault them. It was accordingly that the petitioner was summoned by the police to ascertain the facts and figures. It is stated that, but for registering the petition, no crime has been registered. Since the issue pertains to civil rights between petitioner and party respondents and since a civil suit is pending as mentioned above, it is for the parties to approach the civil court and pursue the rights and liberties before the said court.
The submission made by the learned State Attorney WP(C).16093/14 3 that police does not intend to interfere with the civil dispute is recorded and the matter is closed accordingly.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
vgs25.6.14