IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 14683 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MERCY,AGED 42 YEARS,W/O.VINCENT, ARAYAKULATH HOUSE,NAYARAMBALAM,VYPIN. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,LAW & ORDER, RURAL,ALUVA. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NJARACKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NJARACKAL POLICE STATION. 4. PAULOSE,THANAPPILLY HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM,5TH WARD, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY,VATTATHARA ROAD,VYPIN. 5. SHAJI,AGED 28 YEARS,S/O.PAULOSE, THANAPPILLY HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM, 5TH WARD,LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, VATTATHARA ROAD,VYPIN. 6. ANDREWS,AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.DEVASSIA, KUNNATH HOUSE,LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, VATTATHARA ROAD,NAYARAMBALAM P.O. 7. NANDANAN,AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.CHERU KANDAN PARATTY HOUSE,LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY VATTATHARA ROAD,NAYARAMBALAM. R4 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.T.N.SURESH R7 BY ADVS. SRI.KURIAN ANTONY EDASSERY, SMT.ANN EMIL JOSEPH, SRI.M.RETHEESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.14683/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 16.1.10 ISSUED FROM THE RDO, FORT KOCHI. P2;- COPY OF THE FIR DT. 16.4.2010 IN CRIME NO.449/2010 OF NJARACKAL POLICE STATION. P3:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.D 21.4.10 FILED BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, VANITHA COMMISSION. P4:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 26.4.10 FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 10.5.2010 FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R4(a):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 8.1.09 PREFERRED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. R4(b):- COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 8.1.2010 FILED BYTHE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE RDO. FORTKOCHI. R4(c):- COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DTD. 15.4.2010 ISSUED FROM THE PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, MALIPPURAM THE 4TH RESPONDENT. R4(d):- COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DTD. 15.4.2010 ISSUED FROM THE PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, MALIPPURAM TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. R4(e):- COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DTD. 17.4.2010 GIVEN TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. R7(a):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 8.1.09 PREFERRED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.14683 of 2010-T ***************************** Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of directions to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection for her against contumacious, culpable and violent acts of respondents 4 to 7. 2. According to the petitioner, her husband had initiated proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C and an order under Section 138 Cr.P.C (Ext.P1) was passed against the 4th respondent. Respondent No.5 is the son of the 4th respondent. Respondents 6 and 7 are allegedly neighbours and friends of respondents 4 and 5. Because of the animosity generated by Ext.P1, the petitioner alleges that respondents 4 to 7 are indulging in objectionable conduct against the petitioner. A crime has been registered. In these circumstances police protection may be afforded to the petitioner, it is prayed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an interim order was passed on 11.05.2010 “directing the 3rd respondent to give adequate protection to the life of the petitioner”. W.P(C) No.14683 of 2010-T 2 4. The petitioner shall be satisfied if the said interim order is made absolute, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner, as after the said direction, there has been no threat against the petitioner. 5. Respondents 4 to 6 and 7 have entered appearance through different counsel. The learned counsel for the 7th respondent submits that the 7th respondent is not interested in the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. No allegations were raised earlier against the 7th respondent. Even in the crime registered, the 7th respondent is not arrayed as an accused. It is, of course, true that subsequently in a private complaint filed by the petitioner, the 7th respondent has been arrayed as an accused with mala fide motives. The 7th respondent may, in these circumstances, be awarded compensatory cost, prays the learned counsel for the 7th respondent. 6. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 submits that there was really no contention in Ext.P1 proceedings. The 4th respondent had expressed his willingness to cut and remove the tree. It is incorrect to say that Ext.P1 generated any bad blood between the parties. According to respondents 4 to 6, the W.P(C) No.14683 of 2010-T 3 petitioner is a woman of questionable character and people of the locality have a lot of grievance against the petitioner. They have been raising objections against her and it is hence that such false allegations are being raised against respondents 4 to 6. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 submits that respondents 4 to 6 shall not indulge in any violent or contumacious conduct against the petitioner. This submission/undertaking may be recorded and this petition may now be dismissed, submits the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6. 7. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 to 3 submits that adequate police protection shall be afforded to the petitioner by the police official respondents if necessity arises. According to the learned Government Pleader in the perception of respondents 1 to 3, there is no need to issue any direction under Article 226 of the Constitution now. Interim orders were issued on 11.05.2010. Now there is no perception of any threat, submits the learned Government Pleader. 8. Interim orders have remained in force for a long period of time, ie. From 11.05.2010. We have considered all the W.P(C) No.14683 of 2010-T 4 relevant circumstances. We accept the submission/undertaking of counsel on behalf of respondents 4 to 7 that they shall not indulge in any contumacious, culpable or violent act against the petitioner. We take note of and record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that respondents 1 to 3, though they do not nowperceive any threat to the life or person of the petitioner, shall afford adequate protection if there be any contumacious, violent and culpable conduct on the part of respondents 4 to 7 contrary to the undertaking made before the Court. We are in these circumstances satisfied that these submissions can be accepted and recorded and no further directions need now be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. This Writ Petition is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/