IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 28349 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.M.RAMANI, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O. K. SIVASANKAR, JAYALEKSHMI, AYILOOR P.O., NENMARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NANMARA 3. VIJAYAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. P.V.- SREEDHARAN, CHOTTUPADAM, NECHOOR, THAROOR VILLAGE, ALATHOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD. 4. KALPANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O. VIJAYAN, -DO-. ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R3 SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS FOR R3 R1 & 2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)NO. 28349/2008 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE POMISSORY NOTE DATED 31-5-1995 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESOONDENT. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16-9-2008 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 28349 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner, who is aged 58 years and her husband,who is aged 74 years, are residing together. Their only daughter is married and settled elsewhere. The petitioner borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the third respondent executing a promissory note. The petitioner is willing to pay the amount due under the promissory note,even though the claim is barred by limitation. The third respondent is threatening and harassing the petitioner and her husband. The petitioner submits, on 31-8- 2008, the third respondent along with certain musclemen engaged by him trespassed into the property of the petitioner and cut down six teak wood trees and 15 plantains. When the petitioner enquired about it with the third respondent through telephone, the said respondent along with his henchmen came WPC.28349/2008 -2- to the house of the petitioner and threatened her and her husband. If something happens to them, there is nobody to help them in their neighbourhood. So, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 representation before the District Superintendent of Police seeking necessary protection to the lives of the petitioner and her husband. Thereafter, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions to respondents 1 and 2 to protect her life and that of her husband. 2. The third respondent submitted that all the allegations against him and his wife, who is the 4th respondent, are unfounded. He has never gone to the house of the petitioner as alleged. In fact, as a security for the amount received under Ext.P1, the petitioner has given a property to his possession for cultivating and taking usufructs from there. Now the petitioner wants to get back the property. Therefore, false allegations are made and Ext.P2 has been filed, it is submitted. The third respondent also submitted that he has no intention whatsoever to go to the petitioner's house or threaten the petitioner and her husband. WPC.28349/2008 -3- 3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the third respondent was summoned to the police station and advised not to create any problem for the petitioner and her husband. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in answer disputed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the third respondent who has chosen not to file any counter affidavit. We record the submission of the third respondent that he has no intention whatsoever to physically harm or harass the petitioner and her husband. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE ks. WPC.28349/2008 -4-