IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8592 of 2011(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- AMBILY SUVARNAKUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.SUVARNAKUMAR, KUZHIVILA KIZHEKKETHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, MANJALLOOR MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM – 691 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR (P.O), KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691 001. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAPURAM (P.O), KOLLAM DISTRICT – 689 695. 4. SHAJI, S/O.VASUDEVAN, LEKSHMI NIVAS, MANJALLOOR MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 689 695. 5. RAJESH, S/O.REVI, LEKSHMI NIVAS, MANJALLOOR MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 689 695. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA, R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.8592/2011-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE R.4. BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 11/03/2010. EXT.P.2.SERIES: COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED FROM THE SUB-REGISTRAR'S OFFICE DTD. 09/03/2011, 10/03/2011 AND 11/03/2011. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. ON 14/03/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.72/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8592 of 2011-Y ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner - a woman, has come to this Court with a prayer for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner against contumacious, culpable and violent acts of respondents 4 and 5 apprehended from them. 2. The petitioner's husband is employed abroad. She had entered into Ext.P1 agreement for sale of immovable property with the 4th respondent. The period of that agreement is over. The extended time is also over. Respondents 4 and 5 are unnecessarily vexing and harassing the petitioner. They are indulging in culpable conduct. In these circumstances, it is prayed that direction for police protection may be issued. 3. Respondents 4 and 5 have entered appearance. According to them, the allegations are totally false. The 4th respondent has already gone to the civil court claiming specific enforcement of the agreement for sale. Other reliefs are also claimed. Interim relief has been granted restraining the W.P.(C) No.8592 of 2011 -: 2 :- petitioner from alienating the property. It is at this juncture, merely for the purpose of stealing a march over the 4th respondent in the litigation, that the petitioner has filed such a petition. Respondents 4 and 5 have no intention whatsoever of taking law into their hands and/or to vex and harass the petitioner. Respondents 4 and 5 shall only be taking steps in accordance with law through the civil court for the enforcement of their rights. In these circumstances, no directions under Art.226 of the Constitution are necessary, submits the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that in the perception of the police officials there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. Parties are already before the civil court. Police shall not intervene in the civil dispute. Parties may be directed to seek appropriate relief from the civil court. If there be any threat to the life or person of the petitioner, police shall take necessary action. These submissions may be recorded. No specific further directions are necessary in these circumstances, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We accept the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 W.P.(C) No.8592 of 2011 -: 3 :- that they shall not indulge in any culpable conduct against the petitioner and that regarding the claim for enforcement of Ext.P1, they shall strictly abide by the orders of the court in Ext.R4(a) proceedings initiated by them before the Honourable Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottarakkara, as O.S. No.72/11. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that respondents 1 to 3 shall take necessary action if there is any threat to the person or life of the petitioner. 6. Recording the above submissions, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge