IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 387 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.4692/2008 Dated 24/09/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.BHASKARAN, S/O.LATE PAPPU, AGED 63 YEARS, THUNDIL HOUSE, MUTHUKULAM NORTH, MUTHUKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.ANIL (K/1480/98) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JACOB PUNNOOSE, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. AKBAR, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN ,ALAPPUZHA DIST. 3. BIJU KUMAR, THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANAKAKUNNU POLICE STATION, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS FOR R1, 2,3 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON 29/07/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Contempt of Case (Civil) No.387 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T P.N.Ravindran, J. This contempt case is filed alleging that the directions issued by this Court in Annexure-A2 judgment in W.P. (C) No.4692 of 2008 have not been complied with by the respondents. 2. By Annexure-A2 judgment delivered on 24.9.2008, a Division Bench of this Court directed that if the petitioner apprehends any further attack against him and his family members, he may inform the third respondent (Sub Inspector of Police, Kanakakunnu Police Station) and in that event, the third respondent will promptly extend necessary protection to the petitioner and his family members. This Court also directed that the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha, shall consider whether action should be taken against the 4th respondet in the writ petition (Sri.Jayachandran), under the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. COC.No.387/2010 2 3. The petitioner states that on 20.1.2010, respondents 4 to 6 in the writ petition attacked him; that he suffered injuries in the attack and was hospitalised; that after discharge from the hospital, he had submitted Annexure-A4 complaint before the third respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Kanakakunnu Police Station; that he was again attacked by the 4th respondent in the writ petition on 31.1.2010; that Annexure- A5 complaint was thereupon filed before the third respondent; that on 1.2.2010, 4th respondent in the writ petition, his wife and one Smt.Devaki threatened the petitioner and that he thereupon submitted Annexure-A6 complaint before the third respondent, and that notwithstanding the said complaints, the third respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, has not taken any action. 4. The third respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanakakunnu Police Station, has sworn to an affidavit, dated 20.3.2010. Paragraphs 4 to 7 thereof reads as follows:- “4. It is respectfully submitted that the police has rendered protection to the petitioner and his family till 12.6.09, after which the same was stopped since no untoward incident took place during this period. COC.No.387/2010 3 5. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner that he is a crusader against the illicit liquor mafia is totally unfounded. After consuming alcohol he himself created problems in Kayamkulam Police Station limit on 3.9.09 and the Doctor certified that he was under the influence of alcohol. A petty case was charged against him as No.144/09 U/S 51(a) of Kerala Police Act in addition to public nuisance. There is another crime numbered 7/09 U/S 324 and 294(b) against the petitioner on a complaint filed by Smt.Suprabha, W/o.Shaji the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition. Smt.Sujatha, w/o.Jayachandran, 4th respondent preferred complaints against the petitioner on 15.2.08, 6.4.08, 16.8.08 and crime No.378/09 U/S. 107 CRPC is also initiated against the petitioner. 6. It is submitted that on 20.1.2010 at 6:15 PM the petitioner informed the Police Station through telephone that he was assaulted by one Jayachandran and Shaji. On the basis of his statement a Crime 30/2010 U/S 294(b) 323, 324 and 34 IPC was registered on 21.1.2010 and the accused were arrested. After completing investigation the case is charge-sheeted before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Haripad. 7. It is submitted that the petitioner and the party respondents in the Writ Petition are relatives and neighbours. There is a civil case OS No.114/08 filed by the petitioner before the Munsiff's Court, Haripaid against the party respondent. It was dismissed on 19.12.09. There is a boundary dispute between the 4th respondent and the petitioner. He is trying to take advantage out of the police protection ordered by this Honourable Court. In the presence of the Police, the petitioner quarreled COC.No.387/2010 4 with the respondent who was making fencing on his boundary and directed the police affording protection to interfere; the police did not do so, it being a civil dispute. The petitioner wants the police to his fiddle his whim's and fancies. From 20.1.2010 police Constables are posted to provide protection for 24 hours a day.” 5. It is evident from the affidavit filed by the third respondent that pursuant to Annexure-A2 judgment of this Court, the Police had rendered protection to the petitioner and his family till 12.6.2009, and since no untoward incident took place till then, it was withdrawn. The affidavit also discloses that various crimes have been registered against the petitioner; that on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner, Crime No.30/2010 was registered on 21.1.2010, the accused arrested, and that after investigation, a charge sheet has been laid before the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Haripad. The affidavit further discloses that the petitioner and the party respondents in the writ petition are neighbours and relatives, and a civil suit, O.S.No.114 of 2008, filed by the petitioner against the party respondents was dismissed on 19.12.2009 and COC.No.387/2010 5 that when the defendant in the suit attempted to put up a fence on the boundary, the petitioner wanted the Police to interfere and that the Police did not interfere, as it was a civil dispute. It is also stated that from 20.1.2010 onwards, Police Constables have been posted to provide protection to the petitioner and his family members. The affidavit filed by the third respondent discloses that all possible steps have been taken pursuant to Annexure-A2 judgment to afford protection to the petitioner. In such circumstances, we find no grounds to entertain the contempt case. It is accordingly closed. J.CHELAMESWAR, Chief Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. nj.