IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 21457 of 2011(F) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- FR.GHEEVARGHESE, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 36 YEARS, KIZHEKKEDATH HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KOZHIKODE 673 001. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANADU DISTRICT WAYANADU 673 121. 3. FR.EBRAHAM, VALLATH, VALLATHUKARA BASIL HOME PUTHUPPADY WAYANADU 673 121. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 001. ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R3 SRI.P.C.GOPINATH FOR R3 SRI.S.N.SREEKANTH FOR R3 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21457 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LEADING TO FIR NO.337/11 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.337/11 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION. RESPONDENT'S EXTS EXT.R3(a):- PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT.25/05/10 IN WP(Crl.) No.179/10. EXT.R3(b):- PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.19/07/10 WP(Crl.) No.179/10. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.21457 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner a Jacobite Priest seeking the following reliefs:- 1) Direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide adequate and timely police protection to the petitioner and his counsel to attend the Family Court, Kalpetta on 5th and 6th of August, 2011 and on subsequent dates on which the case will be posted. 2) Direct the 1st respondent to appoint a special team to investigate Crime No.337/2011 of Thamarassery Police Station. 2. The above reliefs has been sought for on the allegation that there is threat to his life from the 3rd respondent, his father-in-law and that on account of the subsisting threat he is not in a position to attend the Family Court, Kalpetta on the dates when a divorce petition filed by W. P. C. No.21457 of 2011 -2- him seeking divorce of his marriage with the 3rd respondent's daughter stands listed for trial/hearing. 3. On considering the Writ Petition for admission and on hearing the submissions addressed by Sri.Salil Narayanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, we passed the following interim order on 05/08/11. “Issue notice on admission by Special Messenger to respondent Nos.3 and 4. Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Having regard to the averments in the Writ Petition and the fervent submissions addressed before us by Sri.Salil Narayanan, there will be an interim order in the following terms:- Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to provide adequate and timely police protection to the petitioner and his Advocate Sri.T.S.Rajan during their journey through Calicut - Kalpetta National Highway so as to enable them to appear before the Family Court, Kalpetta in O.P No.48/11 which stands posted before the Family Court Kalpetta at 11.00 a.m. on 06/08/11. The petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent and inform him of the details of the journey so as to enable the first respondent to make arrangements if necessary after getting in touch with the 2nd respondent. Post on 11/08/11.” W. P. C. No.21457 of 2011 -3- 4. The 3rd respondent on entering appearance has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting each and every allegation which the petitioner has made in the Writ Petition. Producing documents Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) which are copies of an interim order and final judgment passed by this Court in a Writ Petition for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the 3rd respondent, it is contended that the present Writ Petition is an abuse of legal process by the petitioner. Sri.Salil Narayanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.P.Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel for the contesting 3rd respondent addressed us elaborately on the basis of the pleadings raised by their parties respectively. The submissions of the learned counsel centered round the question as to who is actually responsible for the present estrangement between the petitioner and his wife the 3rd respondent's daughter. We are afraid that in our present jurisdiction it won't be proper that we venture upon deciding W. P. C. No.21457 of 2011 -4- the said issue as we notice that the said issue may be relevant in the proceedings which are presently before the Family Court and other proceedings which may arise in future before other courts between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent's daughter. 5. We, in this Writ Petition need have to be concerned only regarding the grantability of the reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition. The learned Government Pleader submitted that pursuant to the interim order dated 05/08/11 adequate protection was granted to the petitioner and he and his counsel attended the Family Court, Kalpetta on 5th and 6th August, 2011. As regards the second prayer i.e. constitution of a special team for investigating the Crime No.337/11, the Government Pleader submitted that the above crime is being investigated by the Station House Officer. The investigation is proceeding in full swing. In reply Sri.Salil Narayanan submitted that complaining of lethargy in W. P. C. No.21457 of 2011 -5- investigation the petitioner has filed Crl.M.C before this Court. Sri.M.P.Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the 3rd respondent is yet to receive any notice regarding any Crl.M.C filed. 6. Having given our anxious consideration to the pleadings raised by the parties and the submissions addressed at the Bar including the submission of the learned Government Pleader, without expressing any opinion regarding the correctness of the allegations and counter allegations, we are inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition in the following terms:- If the petitioner feels that he will not be able to attend the Family Court, Kalpetta or any other court in Kalpetta in connection with any litigation in which he is the petitioner, respondent or the accused on account of any threat emanating from the side of the 3rd respondent or for that matter anybody else the petitioner will have the permission W. P. C. No.21457 of 2011 -6- to file petition voicing his grievance before the second respondent Dy. S.P., Wayanad. If the second respondent receives any such petition, he will conduct immediate enquiry and on the basis of the facts revealed in the enquiry he will take appropriate decision to grant police protection to the petitioner for the purpose of attending the courts. If the enquiry reveals that the apprehension voiced by the petitioner in the prospective complaint are not real, the second respondent will be justified in declining police protection. 7. We do not propose to consider the grant of the second prayer in the Writ Petition as we are told that another Bench of this Court is already in seizin of the issue. We record the submission of Sri.Ashok Kumar that the 3rd respondent is a senior Priest of the Church to which he belongs and that he has never caused any obstruction as alleged by the petitioner and will never cause any such W. P. C. No.21457 of 2011 -7- obstruction. It is in context of such recording that we want the second respondent to conduct an enquiry before taking a decision as to whether protection should be granted on the basis of complaints which may be filed by the petitioner. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-