IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 615 of 2010(B) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. G.KUTTAPPAN, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT AKSHYADEEPAM VEEDU, G.K.GARDENS, SREEVARAHAM, VALLAKKADAVU.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. PADMINI, PRASANNA NILAYAM, T.C.42/829, SREEVARAHAM WARD, VALLAKKADAVU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.615 OF 2010: APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS; EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF FIR IN VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION CRIME NO.598/2009 EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF FIR IN FORT POLICE STATION CRIME NO.977/S009. EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF MANGALAM DAILY DATED 29.11.2008. EXT.P4.TRUE COPY OF THE PAMPHLET PUBLISHED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5.TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION. EXT.P5A. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE FORT POLICE STATION. EXT.P6.TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIVED FROM FORT POLICE STATION. EXT.P7.TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, FORT DIVISIION IN RESPONDSE TO AN APPLICATION FILED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P8.TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PETTAH CIRCLE IN RESPONSE TO AN APPLICATION FILED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P9.TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.2.2010. EXT.P10.TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1-1.TRUE COPY OF VISITING CARD OF THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.R1-2 TRUE COPY OF THE SUIDIDAL NOTE. EXT.R1-3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 24.5.2004. EXT.R1-4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL IN AS 83/09. EXT.R1-5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2006 EXT.R1-6 TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 18.9.2007. EXT.R1-7 THE CRIME REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE FORT POLICE STATION CRIME NO.974/09 DATED 27.11.2009. EXT.R1-8 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 30.11.2009 IN 599/09 K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.615 of 2010-B ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-- “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 2 and 3 to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his family members. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents 2 and 3 to take action on Exhibit P5 and P5(a) as per law.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:--Petitioner is a law abiding citizen and is residing with his wife and adopted daughter. The Ist respondent is a relative of the petitioner. She is a known criminal involved in many criminal cases. She had brutally manhandled several persons including police officers. It is stated that on 26.11.2009 the Ist respondent without any reason manhandled the petitioner and uttered abusive languages. Further reference is made on the incident on 30.11.2009. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the Ist respondent producing Exts.R1 to R8. Petitioner has also filed a reply WPC No.615/2010 -2- affidavit. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Ist respondent. The learned counsel for the Ist respondent would point out that there is a litigation between the Ist respondent and her sister and the petitioner is taking sides. The learned counsel for the Ist respondent would submit that the Ist respondent has not threatened the petitioner and that she has no intention to lay any threat to the life of the petitioner. We record the said submission. We, however, direct that in case if there is any threat to the life of the petitioner, effective protection will be given to the petitioner as against the Ist respondent by respondents 2 and 3. We make it clear that we have not passed any order in relation to the property rights of the Ist respondent. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS