IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 33620 of 2007(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHANMUGHADAS, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 62 YEARS, SANTHI BHAVAN, NEAR LASAR CHURCH, KALLUMKAVU, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. SAM PUNAMOOTTIL, S/O.VARGHESE, KULATHI THEKKATHIL, PANTHAPLAVU P.O., PATTAZHY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. VARGHESE THAMPI, KULATHIL THEKKATHIL, PATHAPLAVU P.O., PATTAZHI VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. SHIBU GEORGE, PAZHAYIDATHU PUTHENVEEDU, PANTHAPLAVU P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. RAJMOHAN, S/O.THULASEEDHARAN NAIR, RAJI BHAVAN, PATHAPLAVU, PATTAZHI VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY G.P.SRI.SALIM P.A. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.NO.33620/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD 9.7.2007. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE PETITION DTD 31.10.2008. /TRUE COPY/ cl K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.33620 OF 2007-B -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection to his life and his family members. The facts of the case are the following: The petitioner's wife is running a travel agency by name “Akku Tours and Travels” at Pathanapuram. It is engaged in arranging Visa, Passport and Air Tickets etc., to its customers. While so, in September 2006, respondents 4 to 7 approached the petitioner's wife to provide the address of Mr.Ferozkhan, who is a resident of Sulthanate of Oman. The petitioner furnished his address. It appears later that respondents 4 to 7 were taken to Sulthanate of Oman under forged visa and they were sent back by the authorities. Thereafter, they have approached the petitioner's wife claiming refund of the money they paid. Under threat and coercion, they got Ext.P1 agreement executed by the WPC.NO.33620/2007 . 2 petitioner's wife and one Thankachan, who is the staff of the said travel agency, agreeing to pay the amount specified therein to the said respondents. The petitioner and his children are also witnesses to that agreement. According to the petitioner, no amount is due from his wife to the party respondents, but they started to harass them. So, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation before the police. Since no help from the police was forthcoming, this writ petition is filed. The petitioner also pointed out that demanding money, the party respondents have brutally manhandled him. 2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the petitioner's wife received the amount mentioned in Ext.P1 from respondents 4 to 7 agreeing to provide them visa. When she failed to do that, they have demanded the amount back. Thereupon, Ext.P1 agreement was executed. Later, the petitioner issued cheques to the party respondents for the amount received from them. When the petitioner failed to discharge the liability arising out of issuance of the cheques and execution of Ext.P1 agreement, this writ petition is filed, it is submitted. WPC.NO.33620/2007 . 3 3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. Having regard to the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and his wife, we feel that it is not a fit case where we should invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court and order police protection. The petitioner has to take recourse to the ordinary remedy available to him under the Codes of Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl WPC.NO.33620/2007 . 4 WPC.NO.33620/2007 . 5