IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16871 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KRISHNANKUTTY.V.K., S/O.THEVANKUTTAN, VALUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHALAKUZHI (PO), THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 689 645. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 689 101. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 689 101. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 689 101. 5. SURENDRAN, MALIYEKKAL VEETIL, CHALAKUZHI (PO), THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 689 101. 6. RAGINI, W/O.SURENDRAN, MALIYEKKAL VEETIL, CHALAKUZHI (PO), THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 689 101. 7. SHYJU, S/O.SURENDRAN, MALIYEKKAL VEETIL, CHALAKUZHI (PO), THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 689 101. 8. BIJU, S/O.SURENDRAN, MALIYEKKAL VEETIL, CHALAKUZHI (PO), THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 689 101. 9. SHINE, D/O.SURENDRAN, MALIYEKKAL VEETIL, CHALAKUZHI (PO), THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 689 101. 10. BINU, MALIYEKKAL VEETIL, CHALAKUZHI (PO), THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 689 101. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.16871/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DATED 28/12/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20/6/2011 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 16871 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner has approached this court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 4 Police Officers of various ranks in the Revenue District of Paathanamthitta to afford him adequate police protection to his life and to the life of his daughters and his properties from " any threats" by respondents 5 to 10 and their henchmen. 2. The 5th respondent is the brother of the petitioner and the 6th respondent is the 5th respondent's wife. Respondents 7 to 10 are the children of the 5th respondent and the 10th respondent is son in law of the 5th respondent. 3. On considering the writ petition for admission this court on 24/6/2011 passed the following order; "Heard. We are not persuaded to admit this petition in which prayer is made for protection of life and property of the WPC.No.16871/2011 2 petitioner. So far as the property is concerned, it appears to be evident that the petitioner and the 5th respondent are the co- owners in respect of the property. 2. The learned Government Pleader prays for time to take instructions to ascertain whether there is any threat to the life or person of the petitioner independent of the dispute about the property. Request accepted. The learned Government Pleader shall take instructions". 4. Today on the basis of instructions received from the first respondent, the Superintendent of Police, Sri. T.K.Vipindas, learned senior Government Pleader submitted before us that essentially the dispute between the petitioner and the party respondents is a dispute over the division of the parental properties of the petitioner and the 5th respondent. With reference to Ext.P2 petition submitted by the petitioner before the 4th respondent Sub Inspector of Police, the learned senior Government Pleader submitted that the 4th respondent WPC.No.16871/2011 3 conducted enquiry and reported that there is enmity between the petitioner and the 5th respondent out of the dispute regarding the share due to them from their parental properties. The police directed the petitioner and the 5th respondent to come to the police station on 23/6/2011. Neither party came to the police station in response to the above direction. Hence, the petition is still kept pending. The learned senior Government Pleader also submitted that the police has arranged close watch over the disputed property so that if any law and order problem arises, needful can be done by the police. The Government Pleader submitted that the petition (Ext.P2) stands registered as petition No. 262/IP/2011 T I. That petition is kept pending as the parties have not turned up. No crime has been registered in the Thiruvalla Police Station on the basis of Ext.P2, so submitted the learned Government Pleader. The Government Pleader submitted that earlier in 2009 when it was revealed that the 7th respondent and his friend criminally trespassed into the house of the petitioner with deadly weapons, the police registered the crime as Crime No.907/2009 under Sections 452, 323, 324, 34I IPC. In that crime both the accused were arrested and WPC.No.16871/2011 4 remanded. The case is presently pending before the JFM Court, Thiruvalla as CC No.810/09. According to the learned senior Government Pleader at the moment there is no law and order problem. However, if it is revealed thta there is any threat to the lives of the petitioner or any member of his family whatever is necessary will be down by the police. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is an eminent danger to the lives and the property of the petitioner and his family members and there is necessity for issuance of proper directions as sought for in the writ petition to respondents 1 to 4. 6. Having considered the averments in the writ petition and the materials placed along with the writ petition and the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the property dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent is one which has to be resolved by them through the process of a competent civil court. It is open to the petitioner to approach a competent civil court for redressal of genuine grievance if any regarding the properties which are subject matter of the dispute. 7. As for the apprehended danger to the lives of the WPC.No.16871/2011 5 petitioner and his family member, we are not satisfied on the materials presently available that there is any such imminent danger. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that in case it is revealed that any law and order situation arises needful will be done by the police. We, hence, dispose of this writ petition directing the petitioner to inform the police as and when specific instances of danger to his own life or the lives of any member of his family arise and if the police receives any petition from the petitioner complaining threat to his life or the lives of any member of his family from the party respondents, the needful shall be done by the police after conducting due enquiries on the petition so received. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE dpk