IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 5676 of 2011(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- KUNJAPPAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. MAILAN, MULLAMMADACKAL HOUSE, ALAPURAM KARA, ELANJI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ELANJI P.O., PIN- 686 665. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.CHOTHY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. POULOSE, AGED 66 YEARS, KIZHAKKEKAIPPATTIYIL HOUSE, ALAPURAM KARA, ELANJI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ELANJI P.O., PIN- 686 665. 2. JOY PAUL, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.POULOSE, KIZHAKKEKAIPPATTIYIL HOUSE, ALAPURAM KARA, ELANJI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ELANJI P.O., PIN- 686 665. 3. BABU, AGED 41 YEARS, PERUNNAKKOTTIL HOUSE, ALAPURAM KARA, ELANJI VILLAGE, ELANJI P.O., PIN- 686 665. 4. ROY, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.POULOSE, PAZHOOPPARAMBIL HOUSE, ALAPURAM KARA, ELANJI VILLAGE, ELANJI P.O., PIN -686 665. 5. SUPDT. OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA, PIN- 683 101. 6. S.I. OF POLICE, KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION, KOOTHATTUKULAM P.O., PIN- 686 662. R5 & R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.K. VIPINDAS. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE (AREEKATTEL). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5676 of 2011(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/11/2010 TO I.G., ERNAKULAM RANGE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE NOTE DATED 06/11/2010 ISSUED BY PIRAVOM GOVT. HOSPITAL. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE FIR NO.502 DATED 08/11/2010 ISSUED BY KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/11/2010 ADDRESSED TO DY. DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCs, STATE OFFICE AT TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASST. DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCs AT TVM. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/11/2010 ISSUED BY KOOTHATTUKULAM COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE FIR NO.579 DATED 18/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE HONOURABLE JFCMC, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE C.M.P. NO.1396/2010 DATED 09/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE HONOURABLE JFCMC, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 31/12/2010 GIVEN TO KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE BUT REFUSED TO ACCEPT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE VOTERS LIST SHOWING THE AGE DETAILS OF 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS AGAINST SL NO.792 AND 796. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 5676 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th April, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 5 and 6 under Art.226 of the Constitution to afford protection to the petitioner against contumacious, culpable and violent acts on the part of respondents 1 to 4. 2. The crux of the grievance against the petitioner as we ascertained the same from the counsel is that crime 502/2010 registered by the Koothattukulam police station at the instance of the petitioner against the second respondent herein is not properly investigated by the police. He has a further grievance that crime 579/2010 of the same police station registered against the petitioner at the instance of the second respondent is not also properly investigated. In as much as these crimes are not properly investigated, petitioner is deprived of his right to protection which he is entitled to by respondents 5 and 6. In these circumstances it is prayed that directions may be issued WPC 5676/2011 2 under Art.226 to respondents 5 and 6 to afford protection to the petitioner against any illegal conduct on the part of respondents 1 to 4. 3. Respondents 1 to 4 have entered appearance through counsel. Counsel denies all the allegations that have been raised in this petition. According to the learned counsel the grievances raised against the respondents by the petitioner is totally unjustified. At any rate the petitioner had not earlier staked any claim for police protection before the authorities. Without and before doing that the petitioner is not entitled to rush to this Court with the claim for police protection, submits the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner did not get sufficient time to approach the police and stake a claim for protection. Two crimes were investigated in such a manner that hurriedly final reports have been filed. In these circumstances there is no merit in the grievance that the petitioner had not approached the police earlier. 5. The learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 submits that after completing the investigation final reports have been filed in both the cases. If the petitioner has WPC 5676/2011 3 any grievance against the manner in which investigation has been conducted and final reports were filed it is for the petitioner to raise such objections before the learned Magistrate before whom the final report is filed. The alleged inadequacy in the conduct of investigation cannot entitle the petitioner for any order of police protection. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that in the perception of the police officials there is no threat to the life of the petitioner emanating from respondents 1 to 4. However the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 submits that if there be any threat to the life or person of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be at liberty to complain to the sixth respondent and the complaint if genuine shall receive genuine, prompt and effective attention and action of the sixth respondent. In these circumstances no specific directions are necessary submits the learned Govt. Pleader. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. Grievances, if any against the manner in which investigation is conducted and final reports are filed must certainly be raised before the Magistrate concerned who is dealing with the final reports filed. 7. Maintenance of law and order is the burden of the police. Ordinarily and normally police must be expected to WPC 5676/2011 4 discharge their duty to maintain law and order and to prevent the commission of crimes even without any specific directions of this Court. But in an appropriate case jurisdiction under Art.226 can be invoked to issue such directions. We need only mention that having considered all the relevant inputs in this case we are of the opinion that no specific directions are necessary under Art.226. In coming to this conclusion we heavily rely on the statement of the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 that genuine complaints if any against the threat to the life and person of the petitioner shall be promptly attended to by the sixth respondent. No further directions are necessary. In these circumstances accepting the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 this petition is dismissed. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 5676/2011 5