Karnataka High Court Expounds Factors For Considering Application Seeking Police Protection Before Trial Court

The Karnataka High Court has elucidated certain factors for consideration of the application filed for police protection before the Trial Court.

The Court was dealing with a Writ Petition filed against the Order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC (Judicial Magistrate First Class).

A Single Bench of Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil took note of the following factors –

a) The nature of 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) 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 CPC. The Trial Court may pass such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.

i) 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.

Senior Advocate H.N. Shashidhara represented the Petitioners while Advocate Ramachandra R. Naik represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioners filed a Suit against the Respondents for declaration and permanent injunction. In the said Suit, the Petitioners’ application for temporary injunction was considered and granted by detailed Order. The said Order was challenged, however, the Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and later restored and there was no stay of the Order. As per the Petitioners, despite the restraining Order against the Respondents, they attempted to dispossess and caused continuous disturbance to the enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the Petitioners. It was further submitted that the Petitioners gave Police Complaints with regard to some incidents and FIRs were registered against the Respondents. Despite the same, the Respondents allegedly continued to disturb the lawful possession of the Petitioners in violation of the interim order handed by the Trial Court which compelled the Petitioners to file an Application seeking police protection to protect their possession.

Allegedly, the Trial Court without considering the same, passed an Order and rejected the application solely on the ground that the incidents narrated by the Petitioners are mere aberrations of interference. Resultantly, the Petitioners lodged the police complaints against the Respondents for constant disturbance to their possession and number of incidents were pointed out in the application. According to the Petitioners, none of such things were considered by the Trial Court, which resulted in rejection of the application. It was contended that the High Court granted interim police protection in the proceedings and thereafter the Respondents did not disturb their possession over the suit schedule properties and hence, the Petitioners sought to allow the Writ Petition by providing police protection to protect their possession over the properties.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “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.”

The Court observed 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. The Trial Court, while rejecting the application has further noted that the petitioners have filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A seeking action against the defendants for violation of injunction order, however, in my view, there is no impediment to entertain the application for police protection to seek for enforcement of the temporary injunction order just because the remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A is available”, it further said.

The Court was of the view that the Petitioners have made out a case that there are exceptional circumstances in the case and that police aid must be provided to implement the order of temporary injunction order 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”, it concluded.

The Court also directed the jurisdictional police to provide police aid whenever the Petitioners seek by pointing out that the Respondents are trying to dispossess or acting in violation of the temporary injunction.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the impugned Order.

Cause Title- Balakrishna K.P. & Anr. v. K.P. Puttaraju & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:24360)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate H.N. Shashidhara and Advocate H.S. Suhas.

Respondents: Advocates Ramachandra R. Naik and M.B. Chandrachooda.

Click here to read/download the Judgment