IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13883 of 2010(I) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ LINCY, W/O.JAFFRIN, AGED 29, RESIDING AT CC.18/120, NEAR PULLIMUTT BRIDGE, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-6. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE, SRI.ANEESH JAMES. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL RANGE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHIN CITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLURUTHY. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLURUTHY. 5. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.THAMPI, THAMPI NIVAS, E.S.I.ROAD, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-6. 6. DILEEP, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, THAMPI HOUSE, E.S.I.ROAD, PALLURUTHY,COCHIN-6. 7. THAMPI, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, THAMPI HOUSE, E.S.I.ROAD, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-6. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA R6 BY ADVS. SRI.DILISH JOHN, SMT.T.J.MARIA GORETTI, SMT.T.V.SHELJA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.13883/2010 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH. P2: COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 30/06/09 BEFORE THE VANITHA COMMISSION. P3: COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 02/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION TO THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANITHA POLICE STATION. P5: COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 18/12/2009 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 23/12/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P7: COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 06/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE VANITHA COMMISSION. P8: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 27/03/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ST.NO.999/2007 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, KOCHI. P10: COPY OF F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.704/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R6(A): COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.NO.488/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE ADV. COMMISSIONER. R6(B): COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH SUBMITTED BY N.K.SADHANANDHAN, HEAD SURVEYOR. R6(C): COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DTD. 22/12/2006. R6(D): COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT. R6(E): COPY OF THE CAVEAT FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S FAMILY. R6(F): COPY OF THE F.I.R. BEFORE THE JFCM COURT II, KOCHI. R6(G): COPY OF THE FIR IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME CASE NO.278/08 BEFORE THE JFMC II COURT, KOCHI. R6(H): COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DTD. 10/08/2009. R6(I): COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT KOCHI. R6(J): COPY OF THE F.I.R. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:13883 OF 2010 I ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th January, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. Petitioner, a woman has come to this Court with this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution for issue of directions to respondents 1 to 4 to afford police protection to her against culpable and contumacious violent acts of respondents 5 to 7. 2. To cut a long story short there are disputes between the petitioner and the relatives on the one hand and respondents 5 to 7 on the other. Fifth respondent is said to be a CP(I)M activist. Sixth respondent is said to be a BJP activist and seventh respondent is said to be a Congress activist. According to the petitioner she has been subjected to a lot of vexation and harassment at the hands of respondents 5 to 7. She has been running from pillar to post to complain of such improper, contumacious and culpable conduct of respondents 5 to 7. No proper action has been taken against them. Though undertakings were given before the Women Commission etc that parties would not indulge in contumacious acts, such atrocious WPC 13883/2010 2 acts are continuing unabated. It is in these circumstances that petitioner prays that directions may be issued to respondents 1 to 4 to afford protection to her. 3. Respondents 5 to 7 have been served. Sixth respondent has entered appearance. Learned counsel for the sixth respondent submits that the boot actually is on the other leg. They are being unnecessarily vexed. They are neighbours and there are disputes between them and the petitioner. Such disputes are pending before various authorities. Only to vex and harass the sixth respondent such proceedings are being initiated by the petitioner. It is undertaken that respondents 5 to 7 shall in no way vex or harass the petitioner. But it may be ensured that she and her relatives also do not indulge in such vexatious conduct. No directions are necessary in these circumstances submits learned counsel for the sixth respondent. 4. The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 to 4 submits that to the knowledge of the police there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. It is true that there are several disputes between the parties. In fact the petitioner's husband is an accused in as many as three cases. WPC 13883/2010 3 Necessary action has been taken by the police on the complaint of the petitioner and her relatives. Some of the complaints raised against respondents 5 to 7 have been found to be unsustainable. If there be any genuine complaint about any contumacious conduct on the part of respondents 5 to 7 against the petitioner or her relatives, necessary action shall be taken. Similarly if there is any complaint by respondents 5 to 7 against contumacious conduct on the part of the petitioner and her relatives necessary action shall be taken to abate such contumacious conduct. No specific directions are necessary. The undertaking given by respondents 1 to 4 may be recorded and this proceedings may be closed submits the learned Govt. Pleader. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We take note of the undertaking of sixth respondent that he shall not indulge in any contumacious or culpable conduct of the petitioner. We record the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader that necessary action shall be taken if any complaint is received about any culpable act. We are in these circumstances satisfied that no specific directions are necessary. With the WPC 13883/2010 4 observation that respondents 1 to 4 must take necessary action if any genuine complaint is received from the petitioner or her relatives we dismiss this writ petition. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 13883/2010 5