ORDER : R. DEVDAS, J. 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Learned counsel Sri. P.M.Siddamallapa has entered appearance for respondent No.6. 2. The petitioner company is holder of License under the provisions of the Stone Crusher Act, 2011 and carrying on business of stone crushing in lands bearing Sy.Nos.1/1, 1/2 and 1/4 in all measuring 3 acres, and Sy.No.1/10C, measuring 3 acres 28 guntas, situated at Timmasandra village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. However, since there was interference at the hands of respondent No.6, the petitioner company herein filed O.S.No.200/2019, before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, seeking a relief of permanent injunction against respondent No.6 herein. By order dated 31.07.2019, the trial Court granted an exparte order of temporary injunction restraining respondent No.6 from interfering with the suit schedule properties till the next date of hearing. 3. It is submitted that respondent No.6 thereafter entered appearance before the trial Court and has not filed any application seeking vacation of the exparte order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the petitioner. Nevertheless, it is submitted that respondent No.6 continues to interfere with respect to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and therefore the petitioner filed another application seeking direction to respondent No.3Nandagudi Police Station to provide protection to the plaintiff so as to enable the plaintiff to enjoy the suit schedule properties and carry on, its day to day activities. However, the trial Court, by order dated 16.01.2020, observed that since the temporary injunction granted was an exparte restrained order, the prayer made by the plaintiff seeking police protection could not be granted. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner company has also approached the jurisdictional police and the Superintendent of Police, respondent Nos.2 and 3, seeking police protection. The jurisdictional police have acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 25.07.2019. It is submitted that even thereafter the petitioner has approached the police seeking police protection but, the police have not done anything in this matter. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to give police protection to the petitioner in its business by taking action against respondent No.6. 5. It is submitted that even thereafter the petitioner has approached the police seeking police protection but, the police have not done anything in this matter. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to give police protection to the petitioner in its business by taking action against respondent No.6. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel for respondent No.6 and perused the petition papers. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to direct respondent No.6 to show some restraints since an exparte order of temporary injunction has already been granted by the trial Court. Unless and until respondent No.6 makes an application seeking vacation of the temporary injunction order granted in favour of the petitioner and there is an order passed in favour of respondent No.6, respondent No.6 shall not be permitted to take law into his hands. Moreover, if a complaint has been made by any party to a jurisdictional police and if the complaint makes out any offence punishable under the IPC, the police are duty bound to take action. 7. The allegation made by the petitioner in the complaint is that respondent No.6 has been interfering in the business of the petitioner and threatening the laborers who are working in the premises belonging to the petitioner. When that is the allegation made, the jurisdictional police should have gone to the spot to find out whether there was any truth in the complaint made by the petitioner. No such action seems to have been taken by the respondent police. However, since an order of temporary injunction, even if it is exparte, has been passed by the competent civil Court, respondent No.6 is required to adhere to the orders passed by the civil Court. If respondent No.6 continues to interfere in the peaceful possession of the premises belonging to the petitioner, and if any complaint is made by the petitioner, the respondent police are required to act on the complaint. 8. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.