IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20325 of 2008(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. SINDHU MILTON, W/O MILTON, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUZHAMGANTHARA HOUSE, ETTUKATTU TEMPLE ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI -26. 2. SEEMA NELSON, W/O LATE NELSON, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUZHAMGANTHARA HOUSE, ETTUKATTU TEMPLE ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI -26. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, 4. P.I. SHAJI, S/O P.M. ISMAYIL, ANCHUNIRATHUNDIYIL HOUSE, PACHALAM, KOCHI -12. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU FOR R4 SMT.N.SUDHA FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20325/2008 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF ILLNESS OF THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 15/04/08 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P2(A): COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A): COPY OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NUMBERED AS M.P.NO. 1978/08 OF JFCM I, ERNAKULAM. EXT.R4(B): COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.535/2008 OF THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST THE 2ND PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 20325 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioners are sisters. The second petitioner is a widow, who is engaged in the business of sale of Churidar materials. The first petitioner's husband is abroad. Therefore, the petitioners 1 and 2 are residing alone with their minor children and aged father. The second petitioner used to borrow money from the 4th respondent for her business and he has advanced Rs.5 lakhs. Later, the 4th respondent started making unlawful advances towards the second petitioner ,which amounted to attempt to commit sexual harassment. So they fell apart. Now the 4th respondent is threatening the 2nd petitioner with physical harm. He threatens to kidnap her children. In the above background, the 2nd petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation before the City Police Commissioner and Ext.P3 WPC.20325/2008 -2- representation before the Circle Inspector of Police, Kalamassery. Since the police did not take any effective action, seeking protection to the life of the petitioners and their family members, this writ petition is filed. 2. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioners. According to him, the second petitioner has borrowed a total amount of Rs.20 lakhs from him. Cheque issued by the 2nd petitioner to clear her liability bounced and therefore a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed by the 4th respondent. He has also filed a civil suit to recover the amount. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dealing with the averments of the 4th respondent and also denying his claim of Rs.20 lakhs from her. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that both parties were called to the Vanitha Police station as well as to the office of the Circle Inspector of Police, Kalamassery. But the 2nd petitioner did not appear before the Vanitha Police Station or before the Circle Inspector of Police. The 4th respondent appeared before the Circle Inspector and gave his version. WPC.20325/2008 -3- 3. In answer, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, before both the police stations the 2nd petitioner was present along with a Junior lady Advocate and the statement made to the contrary by the police is incorrect. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that he has no intention whatsoever to go to the house of the petitioners to threaten them. He does not propose to threaten them telephonically also. He proposes to pursue his claim and recover the amount due from the 2nd petitioner only through the procedure established by law. This submission is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.