IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 5582 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SIVARAJAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NADAR, AKHIL NILAYAM, CHARODUKONAM, PLAMOOTTUKADA, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PRASAD SRI.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA, TRIVANDRUM DIST. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. SELVARAJ, S.S.BHAVAN, VATTAVILA MEKKUMKARA, KEEZHKKOLLA, CHENKAL, NEYYATTINKARA. 4. SANIL KUMAR, S.S.BHAVAN, VATTAVILA MEKKUMKARA, KEEZHKKOLLA, CHENKAL, NEYYATTINKARA. 5. LENIMOL, S.S.BHAVAN, VATTAVILA MEKKUMKARA, KEEZHKKOLLA, CHENKAL, NEYYATTINKARA. 6. MOHANA KUMAR, RTD S.I. OF POLICE, MARAPPAMM ROAD, NELLIMOODU, NEYYATTINKARA. ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R3-6 SRI.V.VIJULAL FOR R3-6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R.2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.5582/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.19.12.2007 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.21.12.2007 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.27/08 DT.13.2.2008. EXT.R3(b): COPY OF F.I.R IN CRIME NO.26/08 DT.13.2.2008. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5582 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2, who are police officers, to render adequate and effective protection to the lives and properties of him and his family members. The 5th respondent is his wife. The 3rd respondent is his father-in-law. The respondents 4 and 6 have married the sisters of the 5th respondent. The petitioner submits he was leading a happy marital life. While so, the 3rd respondent started interfering in their life and under his influence the 5th respondent deserted him on 8.12.2007. The 3rd respondent borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from the petitioner by executing a promissory note. For recovering the amount, he has filed O.S.No.10/2008 before the Sub Court. The 5th respondent along with her two children have filed an application before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Neyyattinkara under Section 12 of the Protection Of W.P.(C) No.5582/2008 2 Women From Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner has moved the Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights by filing O.P.No.1192/2007. He has also filed O.P.No.1193/2007 before the said court claiming right over the 25 cents of land, which he purchased in the name of the 5th respondent. While so, the petitioner submits, on 9.12.2007, the party respondents trespassed into the petitioner's house along with two police men in civil dress. The 5th respondent who accompanied them took away her clothes, gold ornaments etc., with the help of the police men. On 16.12.2007, in the evening, the respondents 3, 4, and 6 and some 'goondas' trespassed into the petitioner's house and brutally manhandled him. Trespass and assault were repeated on 18.12.2007, it is submitted. So, the petitioner filed a representation before the police on 19.12.2007. It was followed by another representation on 21.12.2007 before the 1st respondent. Alleging that the police did not take any effective action to render protection , this writ petition is filed. 2. On 21.2.2008, this Court passed the following order in this writ petition. W.P.(C) No.5582/2008 3 “The Petitioner submits that after the receipt of the notice, the party respondents and their men have brutally attacked him on 2.2.2008 and he is hospitalised. The counsel for the party respondents vehemently deny the said allegations. 2. Government Pleader to get instructions whether the above said allegation is correct. Also, he shall find out whether any crime has been registered against the alleged assailants. If the allegation is found correct, the 2nd respondent shall ensure that sufficient protection is extended to the life of the petitioner, if he alerts the police about the apprehended threat. The party respondents may file counter affidavit. Needless to say, if any crime is registered against the petitioner, the police shall have power to investigate the same and may arrest him, if the offence committed is a cognizable offence.” 3. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has filed a statement through the Government Pleader on 27.2.2008 stating that the allegations of the petitioner were found to be incorrect. The police also submitted that there is no situation warranting police protection to the petitioner. He is already an accused in two crimes. 4. The party respondents have filed a counter affidavit. They denied all the allegations of the petitioner. According to them, the 5th respondent was physically and mentally tortured W.P.(C) No.5582/2008 4 and therefore she has to take shelter in her parental home. She was being harassed for bringing more dowry. At the time of marriage of the 5th respondent, a property having an extent of 38 cents was settled in the name of the petitioner and the 5th respondent. The petitioner compelled her to sell the property for Rs. 20,00,000/-. Simultaneously, the petitioner conveyed a property worth Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the 5th respondent. The promissory note based on which the petitioner has filed the suit against the 3rd respondent is a forged one. The said respondent has produced Exts.R3(a) and R3(b), F.I.R. in Crime Nos.27/2008 and 26/2008 respectively registered on 13.2.2008. The submission made before this Court and based on which this Court passed the interim order was also false. The petitioner is suffering from rheumatism and there was swelling on his legs. He misrepresented the swelling was caused because of manhandling of him by the party respondents. 5. The petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit to the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent or the statement of the police. W.P.(C) No.5582/2008 5 We heard the learned counsel on both sides. In view of the disputed facts, we feel that this is not a fit case where this Court should order any protection for the life of the petitioner. The petitioner has to invoke the ordinary remedies available to him before the Munsiff's court and the Judicial Magistrate's court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps