IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23190 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DEVAPRASAD, AGED 37, S/O NARAYANAN, KOODU VEEDU, KUZHIYAMTHADAM, MOONGODU MURI, ALAYAMON VILLAGE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.MADHUBEN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. S.I. OF POLICE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691306. 2. C.I. OF POLICE, ANCHAL,KOLLAM-691306. 3. DY. S.P., PUNALUR-691305. 4. ANCHAL BADUSHA, VILLIKKULATHU VAYALIL VEEDU, ALAYAMON.P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691320. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI. T K VIPINDAS FOR R1-3 ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY FOR R4 SRI.ADEEP ANWAR FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P. © 23190 OF 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 :TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.8.7.2010 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF DT.10.7.2010 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 10.7.2010 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL // TRUE COPY// K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 23190 of 2010 W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief. “issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, o5rder or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life and property of petitioner from 4th respondent.” 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is a film Director, residing with his wife, one year old child and his old aged parents. He belongs to Scheduled Caste. He has started his dream project by name “Street Light” in November 2009. The 4th respondent invested some money with the W.P.(C).No. 23190 of 2010 2 petitioner. Due to the disturbances caused by the 4th respondent, some artists withdrawn from the film. Hence the shooting was stopped. The amount invested by the 4th respondent was returned. It is submitted that the 4th respondent and three others have abused the petitioner. 3. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 4th respondent as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that there are monetary transactions between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and that amounts are due to the 4th respondent. The petitioner has given a cheque to the 4th respondent, which was dishonoured. Learned counsel also submits that the 4th respondent has no intention to interrupt the shooting or to cause any threat to the petitioner. We record the said submission. 5. It is brought to our notice that this Court has ordered in a Writ Petition filed earlier that the police officers shall not harass the 4th respondent. The police officers are bound to honour the said judgment. W.P.(C).No. 23190 of 2010 3 6. We dispose of the Writ Petition directing respondents 1 to 3 to give protection to the life of the petitioner as against the 4th respondent. In case there is any obstruction for the shooting of the film by physical force by the 4th respondent within the jurisdiction of the third respondent, the third respondent shall give adequate protection to the petitioner. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm