IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13368 of 2011(U) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- K.VIJAYAKUMARAN PILLAI, KOTTAPURATH KALLELIL, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 506. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ALEX RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. PREMJITH, THUNDYIL VEEDU, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 506. 2. UNNI PILLAI, KAVYAM, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 506. * 3. SREEDHARAN, SURESH BHAVAN, KEERIKAD P.O., MUTHUKULAM NORTH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 506.(DELETED) (* THE 3RD RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER JUDGMENT DTD. 13/06/2011). 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANAKAKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 506. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H., SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN. R4 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.13368/2011 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 10/02/2011 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 30/03/2011 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 190 (A) CrPC SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER (CMP 1195/2011) BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, HARIPAD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.13368 of 2011-U ***************************** Dated this the 13th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Service on respondents 1 and 2 is complete. Respondents 1 and 2 have entered appearance. The 3rd respondent is not served. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in these circumstances the petitioner does not want to claim any relief against the 3rd respondent and that he may be deleted from the array of parties. 2. Request is accepted. The 3rd respondent is deleted from the array of parties. Service is thus complete. Heard counsel. 3. The petitioner has come to this Court claiming issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 4 to 6 to afford protection for his life and person against threats emanating from respondents 1 to 3. Respondent No.3 has not been served. On the request of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has been deleted from the array of parties. 4. According to the petitioner, there were business transaction between him and respondents 1 to 3. Respondents 1 to 3 are claiming amounts from the petitioner. They are W.P(C) No.13368 of 2011-U 2 attempting to take law into their hands and pose threat to the person and life of the petitioner in assertion of their claim for money. The short prayer of the petitioner is that the petitioner may be granted protection against such threat to his life and person from respondents 1 and 2 attempting to enforce their financial claim. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 have appeared before this Court through a counsel. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the attempt of the petitioner lacks bona fides. He owes amounts to respondents 1 and 2. He has issued necessary documents and cheques. Respondents 1 and 2 are only attempting to enforce their claim for money in accordance with law. Respondents 1 and 2 propose to initiate prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. If necessary, they shall initiate civil proceedings also against the petitioner. At any rate, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that respondents 1 and 2 categorically undertake that there shall be no threat or harm caused to the petitioner by them in enforcement of their claim for money. This submission may be recorded and no direction may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution. W.P(C) No.13368 of 2011-U 3 Respondents 1 and 2 apprehend that the petitioner may misutilise the direction for police protection to harass and embarrass respondents 1 and 2. 6. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that there are disputes between the parties about the amounts allegedly due from the petitioner to respondents 1 and 2. In the perception of the police officials, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. If there be any such threat, appropriate action shall be taken against respondents 1 and 2 by the police, submits the learned Government Pleader. 7. We take note of the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. We take note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 5 and 6. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no specific directions need be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. But it is made clear that this petition is dismissed accepting the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 that if there be any threat to the W.P(C) No.13368 of 2011-U 4 life or person of the petitioner from respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner can complain and respondents 5 and 6 shall respond adequately to protect the life and person of the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/