IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32133 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL KABEER,S/O.MOOSA,PANNIKKAVEETIL HOUSE,MANNANTHALA,CHAVAKKAD ,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU SMT.NIMA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR 680 001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION,THRISSUR 680 506. 3. FINOJ,S/O.SHAFI,MANAGER/PROPRIETOR, SEENA CROKERY, O.V.ROAD,THALASSERY 670 101. 4. AYUB,S/O.KUNNATH MUHAMMADALI, CHENGOTTA NAGAR,MANNANTHALA,CHAVAKKAD,THRISSUR 680 506. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.32133/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1; COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 20/3/2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 22/7/2011 BETWEEN PTEITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29/11/2011 BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 32133 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. On this writ petition coming up for admission, Sri.Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran learned Government Pleader has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 2. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that even though on the terms of Ext.P2, the petitioner has time till 31/3/2012 for discharging the liability of Rs.10 Lakhs, which he owes to the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent is not prepared to wait till that date. The 3rd respondent along with the 4th respondent trespassed into the petitioner's house demanding immediate payment of the amount. Even now they are threatening the petitioner with danger to life and limbs unless the petitioner pays off the amount immediately. The petitioner approached the first respondent - District Police Chief seeking protection directions. But, the first respondent has not taken W.P.(C) No.32133 /2011 2 any action. 3. Having heard the submissions of Smt.Nima Jacob learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran learned Government Pleader and having considered the averments in the writ petition and the various materials placed on record, we feel that it is not necessary that we take a decision on the truth or otherwise of the allegations contained in the writ petition. Ext.P3 representation is seen submitted by the petitioner before the first respondent. The first respondent will immediately take up Ext.P3. A thorough enquiry will be conducted into Ext.P3 either directly or through the 2nd respondent. The officer conducting the enquiry can either summon or meet respondents 3 and 4. If the enquiry reveals that there is threat to the life or limbs of the petitioner from the part of respondents 3 and 4, appropriate action will be taken by respondents 1 and 2 for protecting the life and limbs of the petitioner. If the enquiry reveals that the real dispute between the parties is over the amount payable to the 3rd respondent under Ext.P2, then the officer conducting the enquiry will instruct respondents 3 and 4 to have remedy from a competent W.P.(C) No.32133 /2011 3 Civil Court. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk W.P.(C) No.32133 /2011 4