IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35523 of 2010(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JOSHY, AGED 48, S/O.CHETTUPUZHAKARAN ANTHONY, VYLOPPILLY NAGAR, NALLANKARA DESOM, NETTISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 690 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR.PIN- 680 001. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.PIN- 680 651. 4. C.I. OF POLICE, OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.PIN- 680 306. 5. RAGHAVAN, S/O.LATE CHELLARI MADHAVAN, CHOOLIPADAM DESOM, PUNCHANCHIRA, PANAMCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680 651. 6. THE S.I. OF POLICE, PEECHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680 653. R1 TO R4, R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS R5 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO. 35523/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O S NO. 944/2010 DATED 16/3/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. P2 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT HEREIN IN EXT P1 SUIT DATED 25/10/2010. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN IA NO. 2890/2010 IN OS NO. 944/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR DATED 23/7/2010. P4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN F.I.R. IN CRIME NO. 234/2010 DATED 03/4/2010 OF THE PEECHI POLICE STATION. P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE MANNUTHY POLICE STATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01/3/2010. P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN AS NO. 279/2010 DATED 30/10/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(A) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04/3/2010, PREFERRED BY SMT.SOBHANA BEFORE THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. R5(B) COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.182 OF 2010, REFERRED TO IN THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT. R5(C) COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 03/4/2010 ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT FROM PEECHI'S SPECIALIST HOSPITAL. R5(D) COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 03/4/2010 ISSUED TO SHRI. C.M. MANOHARAN, BROTHER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT FROM PEECHI'S SPECIALIST HOSPITAL. R5(E) COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE PEECHI POLICE ON 04/4/2010, REFERRED TO IN THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.35523 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 2 to 4 and 6 to provide sufficient and appropriate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner, his family members and his associates against the threat raised by the 5th respondent and their henchmen, in the interest of justice. ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 2 to 4 and 6, to take up Ext.P3 and to consider the same objectively, within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. The petitioner has purchased property from the 5th respondent and is in possession of the property. According to W.P.C.No.35523 of 2010 2 the 5th respondent, it was a money transaction. A suit is filed by the petitioner and an interim injunction is obtained. It is the case of the petitioner that while an Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed to inspect the property, was inspecting the site, the 5th respondent attacked the petitioner and his counsel. 4. Counter affidavit is filed by the 5th respondent denying the allegations. He would submit that there is a counter case also and further that against the order of injunction, an appeal is pending. But he would categorically say that he had not attacked the petitioner. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that as long as the petitioner does not come to the disputed property, he will not cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. 5. The learned Government Pleader also would submit that as of now there is no problem and there is no threat to the life of the petitioner. We record the submissions of the learned counsel for the 5th respondent and the learned Government Pleader. If, contrary to the submission of the 5th respondent, the petitioner complains of any threat to his life before the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent will look into it and if the threat is W.P.C.No.35523 of 2010 3 found to be genuine, the 3rd respondent will give protection to the life of the petitioner as against the 5th respondent. If the matter comes before any court/forum, the said court/forum shall proceed to dispose of the matter untrammeled by anything contained in this judgment. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.35523 of 2010 4 W.P.C.No.35523 of 2010 5 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010