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. 15664 of 2007(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ANOOP, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.LATE HARIHARAN, PAREPARAMBIL, CHENGAMANAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR SRI.M.L.SREEKALA SMT.VEENA ROSHAN JOSE M.A.VINOD RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGAMANAD. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BINANIPURAM, CHENGAMANAD. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA. 4. NAVAKUMAR, S/O.LATE HARIHARAN, AGED 28, MELARANNOOR, GOVT.QUARTERS, A44/537, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. ASWATHI, W/O.NAVAKUMAR, MELARANNOOR, GOVT.QUARTERS, A44/537, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI FOR R4-5 SRI.P.M.JOSEPH FOR R4-5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. 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.15664/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 4TH RESPONDENT DT.4.3.2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.5.5.2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS DATED 22.5.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15664 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner and 4th respondent are brothers. The 5th respondent is the wife of the 4th respondent. The petitioner submits he and the 4th respondent conducted a trade in partnership. The same ended in a loss. The 4th respondent demanded back the money invested by him. The said respondent claimed that 38 sovereigns of gold were pledged for raising the fund. So, the petitioner agreed to pay the said amount to redeem the gold ornaments pledged. But, he cannot honour the said promise because of his financial difficulties. So, the respondents 4, 5 and others are threatening him through the telephone with dire consequence. So, he filed Ext.P3 representation before the police and thereafter this writ petition is filed seeking police protection. Going by Ext.P3, the only cause of action narrated for seeking police protection is the alleged telephonic threatening. W.P.(C) No.15664/2007 2 We are of the view that the same does not give any cause of action to the petitioner to walk into this Court seeking police protection. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps