IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22602 of 2011(A) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- PRATHAPACHANDRAN, S/O. N.RAMACHANDRAN, MRUDULA BHAVAN, PATTATHANAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691001 2. THE ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691001 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691001 4. SAJEEV @ KANNAPPAN, CASHEW BROKER, OPPOSITE OF PALKULANGARA TEMPLE, KALLUMTHAZHAM, KOLLAM-691004 5. JAMALUDDIEN, SAJEER MANZIL, KALLUMTHAZHAM, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM-691004 6. SAJEER, S/O. JAMALUDDIEN, SAJEER MANZIL, KALLUMTHAZHAM, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM-691004 WP(C).No. 22602 of 2011(A) -2- 7. AJAYAKUMAR OPPOSITE OF VETERNARY HOSPITAL, PERUMPUZHA, KOLLAM-691003 ADV. SRI.RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN R5 R6 SRI.R.RANJITH FOR R5,6 SRI. K.SIJU FOR R7 SMT.BINDU GEORGE FOR R7 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.HANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22602 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION GIVEN TO THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER DT.28/05/11. EXT.P2:- A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION GIVEN TO THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) KOLLAM DATED 11/08/11. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.22602 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J This Writ Petition is filed seeking relief by way of direction to respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner from respondents 5 to 7 and their henchmen. Averments in the Writ Petition is to the effect that the petitioner is running a cashew factory. He had purchased 58 bags of raw-cashew nut from the 4th respondent, who is a broker in the transactions of cashew nuts. The said cashew nuts were stocked in a shop room belonging to the 7th respondent, from where it was transported to the petitioner's factory. According to the petitioner, the value of the cashew nut was paid to the 4th respondent through cheque payment. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the cashew nuts in question were stolen property and that a criminal W. P. C. No.22602 of 2011 -2- case was registered with respect to theft of the said cashew nuts, as Crime No.557/11 of Chadayamangalam police station. It is stated that the petitioner was summoned to the police station and his statement was recorded before the Magistrate court under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Complaint of the petitioner is that, thereafter the respondents 5 and 6 are threatening him demanding payment of a sum of ` 3,50,000/- towards value of cashew nuts. It is alleged that there is constant threat from the side of respondents 5 to 7, and inspite of Ext.P2 complaint submitted before the 1st respondent, no steps are taken to afford protection. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 and 6, it is stated that the 6th respondent is running a cashew factory at Ozhukkupara in Pathanapuram. 85 bags of raw- cashew nuts having value of ` 5,10,000/- was stolen from his factory by his Manager, named Sri.Ratheesh along with his associates. On the basis of a complaint lodged Crime No.557/11 was registered. Investigation revealed that the W. P. C. No.22602 of 2011 -3- petitioner had purchased 58 bags of raw-cashew nuts out of the stolen property. It is mentioned that the investigation is under progress and the 4th respondent is yet to be arrested. The police is also investigating as to whether the petitioner had purchased the nuts with knowledge that it is stolen property. According to respondents 5 and 6 they have never caused any threat or intimidation to the petitioner. On the other hand, according to respondents 5 & 6, this Writ Petition is filed with totally false allegations with an oblique motive to escape from the liability of purchase of the stolen property, and it is intended only to shield the actions apprehended from the side of the police authorities and to escape from the possibility of the petitioner getting implicated as accused in the criminal case. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 7th respondent it is stated that he had rented out a shop room to the 4th respondent on a temporary basis and that he is not at all aware about any illegal activities of the 4th respondent. However, on coming to know about storage of the stolen W. P. C. No.22602 of 2011 -4- property, the 4th respondent was evicted from the premises. The 7th respondent had denied that he had caused any threat or intimidation to the petitioner or to his family members. He has no connection with respondents 5 and 6, is the contention. 4. From the averments in the Writ Petition itself it is evident that the raw cashew nuts purchased by the petitioner from the 4th respondent is a stolen property. The police authorities are now investigating the case registered with respect to the theft committed. That being so, it may not be proper and justified on the part of this Court in making any observations as to whether the petitioner has got any involvement in the offence. We notice that the respondents 5 to 7 are stoutly denying the allegations with respect to threat and intimidation alleged to have been caused to the petitioner or to his family members or workers. They concede that they have no such intention to create any threat or intimidation. The further allegation with respect to the demand for value of the cashew nuts, is also W. P. C. No.22602 of 2011 -5- denied. However, we find that if the respondents have got any such claim, it is left open to seek appropriate legal remedy against the petitioner. We do not find any reason to permit respondents 5 to 7 to raise any threat against the lives of the petitioner or his family members, based on any such claim. Since it is recorded that respondents 5 to 7 have no intention to create any threats to the lives of the petitioner, his family members or workers, we do not find any circumstances warranting issuance of specific directions as sought for in this Writ Petition. 5. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- W. P. C. No.22602 of 2011 -6-