Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked to Adjudicate Disputed Civil Rights Under the Garb of Police Protection.

The petitioners, claiming to be absolute owners of a property, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to restrain private respondents (Nos. 7–11) from interfering with the construction of a boundary wall and main gate

A civil suit (T.S. No. 25 of 2006) was already pending between the parties, wherein an injunction order was passed on 10.09.2025 directing both parties to maintain the status quo regarding the nature and character of the property

The petitioners alleged that on 08.05.2026, the respondents demolished the wall and committed theft, leading to an FIR under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

While the petitioners sought police protection to enforce their rights, the respondents challenged the maintainability of the writ petition due to the pending civil suit

1. Whether a writ of mandamus for police protection is maintainable when civil rights over property are disputed and a suit is pending before a competent Civil Court?

2. Whether the High Court under Article 226 should adjudicate on the violation of an interlocutory injunction order passed by a Civil Court?

The court primarily relied on the principles established in P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar (2006), which held that a writ for "police protection" has limited scope and cannot be used to adjudicate civil rights or property disputes that have not been finally determined by a Civil Court

It also acknowledged M.M. Dutt v. Prabir Kumar Sun (1985), which clarifies that Courts possess inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to prevent the abuse of the process of law and can grant immediate relief, such as mandatory injunctions, when an order is violated

The Court observed that the petitioners’ grievances—regarding the demolition of the boundary wall and interference with construction—involved disputed questions of fact and property rights

Applying the P.R. Murlidharan precedent, the Court reasoned that Article 226 cannot be used as a shortcut to adjudicate civil rights or to enforce an interlocutory injunction when an efficacious alternative remedy exists in the Trial Court

The Court noted that the State had already initiated criminal proceedings and made arrests, fulfilling its statutory duty

Consequently, the Court found that it could not, in the "garb of police protection," decide whether the injunction had been violated, as that remains the exclusive domain of the Civil Court where T.S. 25 of 2006 is pending

The Court directed that the petitioners are not precluded from approaching the competent Civil Court for the enforcement of the injunction order dated 10.09.2025 or the Criminal Court to monitor the ongoing investigation