IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28516 of 2011(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ AMANULLA, S/O.SAINULABDEEN, PUNCHAVEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM, PARAVUR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KOLLAM CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001 2. THE ASSISTANT CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM - 691 572 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM - 691 572 4. NAVAS, S/O.SAINULABDEEN, BADARIA MANZIL, Y-NAGAR-26, PALLIMUKKU, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 010 5. SAINUDEEN MUHAMMED RAFI, S/O.PAREETHU KUNJU, MAYYANADU BHAVAN, MAYYANADU, KOLLAM - 691 303 6. DEEPAK, THEKKEPLAVILA VEEDU, KOONAYIL, PARAVUR, KOLLAM - 691 001 7. JALAL, JASIM MANZIL, KOTTAPPURAM, PARAVUR, KOLLAM - 691 001 R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI T.P. SAJID R4 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SKV WP(C).No. 28516 of 2011(L) ------------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A): PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2011 IN MC.122/2011 IN CMP9460/2011 OF JFMC, PARAVOOR. EXT.R4(B): COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20.01.2006 FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE S.I. OF POLICE. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE SKV PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C).NO.28516 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The petitioner has approached this Court arraying his own siblings - R4, R5 and R7 and a stranger - the 6th respondent as respondents seeking directions for police protection for his life and the life of his wife from the alleged atrocities of respondents 4 to 7. It is alleged that respondents 4 to 7 indulged in various contumacious acts arousing fear in the mind of the petitioner and his wife and it has become very difficult for the petitioner and his wife to live peacefully. 2. The learned Government Pleader Sri. T.P. Sajid on the basis of instructions from respondents 1 to 3 submitted that considering the complaint submitted by the petitioner against the party respondents, which was forwarded by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, police have registered Crime No.1392/2011 against the party respondents. The above crime is under investigation. Accusations of police lethargy is not justified. 3. Sri Baghaval Singh, learned counsel for the 4th W.P.(C).NO.28516 OF 2011 : 2 : respondent submitted that allegations in the writ petition are without any basis. The intention of the petitioner is to get away from the impact of Ext.R4(a) order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, South Parvur in favour of Nabeesa Beevi, who is the mother of the petitioner and respondents 4 , 5 and 7. It is a residence order which has been passed in favour smt. Nabeeza. Idea of the petitioner and his wife is to chuck the mother Nabeeza Beevi out of the house. He also draw our attention to Ext.R4(b) complaint submitted by the 7th respondent. He submitted that what is stated in Ext.R4(b) is true. 4. We have anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the bar. We have gone through the averments in the writ petition as well as the documents placed on record by the petitioner as well as by the 4th respondent. We have also considered the submissions made by Sri. T.P Sajid – senior Government Pleader on the basis of instructions from the police. The only question we are called upon to decide is whether there is warrant for issuance of the police protection direction sought for in this writ petition. W.P.(C).NO.28516 OF 2011 : 3 : 5. Having considered the submissions and the material, we are of the view that it is not necessary to issue the specific direction sought for. We direct the third respodnent - Station House Officer, Chathannur police station to keep constant vigil over the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7 and also Smt. Nabeeza Beevi, the mother of the petitioner and respondents 4, 5 and 7 and their places of residence and to ensure by taking prompt action on the basis of the report received that the disputes between the parties do not give rise to any law and order situation or violence. It should always be ensured that Ext.R4(a) order issued in favouar of Smt. Nabeesa Beevi is not disobeyed by the petitioner and his wife. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl W.P.(C).NO.28516 OF 2011 : 4 :