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 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 23854 of 2011(F) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ BABU C.K,S/O.ACHUTHAN, AVANI HOUSE,PERAMBRA P.O., KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMBRA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE 673 525. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMBRA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE 673 525. 3. SREEJA P.M, D/O.CHOYYAN,KAPPUMMAL,PERUNTHOTTATHIL VEEDU, MENJANIAM,PERAMBRA P.O.,KOZHIKODE 673 525. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23854 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- A COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER PASSED BY HON. HIGH COURT IN CRL. M.A. NO.3187/11 IN CRL. APPEAL NO.609/11 DATED 05/04/11. EXT.P2:- A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 03/07/11. EXT.P3:- A COPY OF the RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 03/07/11. EXT.P4:- A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, PERAMBRA DATED 03/07/11. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.23854 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J The petitioner is a person convicted in a criminal case charge sheeted for offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, and imposed with sentence of imprisonment for life. The sentence imposed was suspended by this court in a pending appeal, as per Ext.P1 order. The 3rd respondent who is the de facto complainant is allegedly creating obstructions to the business activities of the petitioner. It is alleged that she is physically creating obstructions at the jewellery shop conducted by the petitioner at Perambra, under the name and style “Avani”. It is contended that the 3rd respondent had approached the Family Court, Kozhikode claiming maintenance for an illegitimate child borne to her, allegedly under paternity of the petitioner and an order of maintenance had already been passed against the petitioner. The matter is now pending in Revisions filed by both sides, before this court and the W. P. C. No.23854 of 2011 -2- petitioner had already complied with the condition imposed by this court while granting stay against operation of the order of maintenance. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that obstruction is caused by the 3rd respondent at the jewellery shop by shouting filthy language against the petitioner in front of his customers. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 complaint before the 1st respondent as well as Ext.P4 complainant before the 2nd respondent. Since no action is taken on the basis of such complaints, this Writ Petition is filed seeking directions for police protection. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, on the basis of instructions received, submitted that the complaints received were enquired into and the 3rd respondent was strictly warned not to create any physical obstructions to the business activity of the petitioner at the jewellery shop. She is advised to seek appropriate remedy in the legal proceedings which are pending. 4. Inspite of service of notice from this court, the 3rd respondent has not chosen to enter appearance or to contest the case. We find that the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd W. P. C. No.23854 of 2011 -3- respondent is pending before this court in the Revision Petitions. If the 3rd respondent has got any other claim with respect to the alleged relationship with the petitioner or with respect to the paternity of the child, she is always at liberty to seek further reliefs under law by approaching the competent courts or other authorities. However, the 3rd respondent is not entitled to take law into her own hands and to create any physical obstructions or threats to the business activity of the petitioner or to his life. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to take effective steps if any such obstruction is reported and to remove such obstruction and if necessary to afford protection to the business activity of the petitioner. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- W. P. C. No.23854 of 2011 -4-