JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. Claims of ecclesiastical privileges and rights are now commonly arriving at this Court as “Police Protection matters”, wherein individuals and sometimes groups seek orders to be issued to the Police to afford protection so that they or the persons of their belief and choice be permitted to discharge canonical functions in the various churches. Factionalism, rather than ecumenism are at the core of such claims and disputes and at first blush, any court exercising writ jurisdiction, would be persuaded only to leave the parties to their Civil remedies and not to meddle in it by a “Police Protection” order. 2. Mercifully, in this case, the petitioner has concededly invoked Civil remedies but has approached this Court with a plea that his life be directed to be protected while he functions as the Vicar of a particular Church. 3. First, we will set out the facts involved as under. The petitioner claims to be a Christian and states to be holding 'key responsibilities' of various churches under the Metropolitan of Ankamaly Diocese. According to him, the “Mar Thomma Cheriya Palli”, Kothamangalam is a constituent Parish Church of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and he asserts that he is appointed as the “Vicar” of the said church by the Metropolitan of the Ankamaly Diocese. The allegation of the petitioner is that when he started to function as the “Vicar” of the Church as per the directions of the Metropolitan of the Ankamaly Diocese, respondents 4 to 11, who he alleges to be the members of another faction, tried to attack him with an evident intention of injuring him or even putting him to death. On such allegations, the petitioner approached the police with Ext.P3 petition and he has filed this writ petition seeking that the concerned police Authorities be directed to afford adequate and effective police protection to his life from respondents 4 to 11 and their men. 4. We have heard Sri. C. Ajithkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Vinod S. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 11 and the learned senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 3. 5. 4. We have heard Sri. C. Ajithkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Vinod S. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 11 and the learned senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 3. 5. The learned Government Pleader, appearing on instructions from respondents 1 to 3, submits before us that the issues that are essentially projected in this case are in the realm of civil disputes, which becomes obvious because the petitioner claims to be the “Vicar” of the Church and he asserts his rights to function in such capacity. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has, in fact, filed O.S.No.162 of 2018 before the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha and that Ext.P1 order had been issued by the said court restraining respondents 4 to 11 and their men from causing any obstruction in the discharge of the duties of the petitioner as the parish Priest in the Church in question. The learned Government Pleader thus reiterates that the police cannot involve in this matter since it is essentially a civil dispute. 6. Sri. Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 11, refutes the submissions of the petitioner, rather vehemently, by alleging that the petitioner has approached this Court without disclosing the true facts. According to the learned counsel, even though Ext.P1 order has been exhibited by the petitioner, he has chosen not to bring to the the notice of this Court the subsequent fact that an appeal had been preferred against the said order and that the District Court, in C.M.A. No.19 of 2018, has recorded that the petitioner herein has undertaken to maintain status quo and to argue the CMA as a party-in-person. Sri. Vinod Bhat shows us Ext.R10(b) which is the order in the said CMA, produced along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 11, to drive in his contention that the District Court has, therefore, directed both parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the stay petition and that too, as per the consent of both sides. He says that the matter is now adjourned for hearing to 01.09.2018. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Ajith Kumar, in answer to Sri. Vinod Bhat, predicates that the petitioner is not before this Court seeking any protection for the purpose of discharging his functions as a “Vicar” of the Church. He says that the matter is now adjourned for hearing to 01.09.2018. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Ajith Kumar, in answer to Sri. Vinod Bhat, predicates that the petitioner is not before this Court seeking any protection for the purpose of discharging his functions as a “Vicar” of the Church. According to the learned counsel, respondents 4 to 11 have proclaimed openly that they will attack the petitioner and even do him to death. He says that the petitioner has, therefore, only prayed for protection to his life and nothing else. 8. On a consideration of the afore submissions made before us and on evaluating the various materials that are available before this Court, we are of the view that it will not be justified for this Court, in view of the pendency of the civil disputes between the parties before a Court of competent jurisdiction, to in any manner declare the rights of the petitioner or that of the respondents 4 to 11 with respect to the functions that they claim or assert in the church in question. At the best, we can only consider whether the lives of the parities are in imminent peril and whether consequential orders, to ensure that they are sufficiently protected, requires to be issued. When we asked Sri. Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 11 whether his clients were intending in any manner to cause injury or to launch an attack on the petitioner, as has been alleged, the vehement assertion of the learned counsel was to the negative. According to Sri. Vinod Bhat, neither had his clients attempted to do so nor do they have any intention to cause any injury or attack on the petitioner in the future. 9. Going by the submissions of the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 11 it becomes obvious that the apprehensions voiced before us by the petitioner has perhaps now been completely allayed. It would, therefore, not require this Court to order continuous police protection, even to the life of the petitioner as has been prayed for, but we leave him liberty to approach the police Authorities as and when he perceives any threat to his life at the hands of respondents 4 to 11 or any other person. 10. It would, therefore, not require this Court to order continuous police protection, even to the life of the petitioner as has been prayed for, but we leave him liberty to approach the police Authorities as and when he perceives any threat to his life at the hands of respondents 4 to 11 or any other person. 10. Needless to say, if the police receives any complaint from the petitioner or from any one else, including respondents 4 to 11, regarding the attempt to commit or the commission of a cognizable offence, they are obligated to consider it and initiate action appropriately as per law. This Writ petition is thus ordered.