[S.151 CPC] Karnataka High Court Lays Down Guidelines To Be Followed By Trial Courts Before Granting Police Protection
The Karnataka High Court has said that the exercise of power by the trial Court to consider the application for police protection is an inherent power of the Court under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court may pass such an order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.
A single judge, Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil held thus and issued guidelines to be followed by trial courts while considering the application made seeking police protection by the plaintiff in a suit. It said, “I am of the view that the consideration of the application filed for police protection before the trial Court shall be based on various factors like:
a) The nature of the temporary injunction order passed by the trial Court.
b) The nature of police protection sought.
c)The trial Court shall consider the effect of granting and non-granting of police protection.
d) The trial Court shall satisfy itself that prima facie case is made out for grant of police protection based on the pleading and material on record.
e) The trial Court shall record the reasons while granting the police protection against the defendants as to whether the defendants are consistently violating the temporary injunction order with impunity and there is need for police protection or aid.
f) The trial Court shall also take note of the fact that whether the temporary injunction order - granted has attained finality and the application needs consideration even during the pendency of the appeal against the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court by recording the reasons for such urgency or otherwise.
g) The trial Court cannot order police protection mechanically. Each case has to be dealt based on the pleading, material on record and the nature of protection sought and nature of temporary injunction granted. Unless the trial Court satisfies itself that there is an imminent need for police aid/police help, it cannot order for police protection on mere request.
h) There is no impediment for the trial Court to consider the application for police aid or protection merely because there is a remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC.
Further, it said, “The trial Court shall keep in mind the aforesaid factors and also consider other relevant material and factors while passing an order on the application for police protection or aid.”
Background
The bench gave the directions while allowing a petition filed by Balakrishna K P who had approached the court questioning the order of the trial court rejecting their application for grant of police protection.
The petitioners contended that despite the restraining order against the respondents, they have attempted to dispossess and caused continuous disturbance to the enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the petitioners. Petitioners gave police complaints with regard to some incidents and FIRs came to be registered against the respondents. Despite the same, the respondents have continued to disturb the lawful possession of the petitioners in violation of the interim order granted by the trial Court, which compelled the petitioners to file an application seeking police protection to protect their possession.
However, the trial court had rejected the application solely on the ground that the incidents narrated by the petitioners are mere aberrations of interference.
On going through the records, the bench said, “The trial Court has recorded detailed reasons while granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents with regard to the possession over the suit schedule property. In violation of the temporary injunction order, if the respondents interfere with the possession as observed by the trial Court, it is the duty of the trial Court to protect such possession by providing necessary police aid to the petitioners against the respondents, who wanted to take the law into their own hands.”
Then it held “In my considered view, the trial Court has committed grave error in recording the finding that there are some aberrations of interference and rejected an application for police protection.”
It emphasised that “There cannot be a continuous police aid or police protection to guard the properties of the petitioners. However, the same also cannot be a ground to deny the police aid whenever specific instances of interference by the respondents were brought to the notice of the police by the petitioners. Non providing of police protection in such cases would give a ground for the respondents to defy the order of the temporary injunction granted by the Court.”
Noting that after the grant of police protection by this Court on 16.01.2020 there is no interference from the respondents, the bench said, “Petitioners have made out a case that there are exceptional circumstances in the case on hand and that police aid must be provided to implement the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court whenever need arises. It is needless to observe that the police protection sought and granted by this Court shall remain in force till the temporary injunction order operates in favour of the petitioners.”
Appearance: Senior Advocate H.N Shashidhara for Advocate H S Suhas for Petitioners.
Advocate Ramachandra R Naik FOR R1 TO R7, R10 & R11.
Advocate M.B Chandrachooda FOR R8, R9 (a to d).
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 238
Case Title: Balakrishna K P & ANR AND K P Puttaraju & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.51712/2019