IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13548 of 2011(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NAVAS, S/O. ILLYAS, FATHIMA MANZIL, T.C.41/107, PALLI STREET, POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 026. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POONTHURA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POONTHURA POLICE STATION, POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695026. 4. NIZAM, T.C.46/1001, YETTUVEETTU LANE, BEEMAPALLI WARD, AYIKKARA VEETU MURIYIL, MUTHATHARA VILLAGE, POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 026. 5. JAHANGIR, T.C.46/1001, YETTUVEETTU LANE, BEEMAPALLI WARD, AYIKKARA VEETU MURIYIL, MUTHATHARA VILLAGE, POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 026. 6. SUNEER, T.C.46/1001, YETTUVEETTU LANE, BEEMAPALLI WARD, AYIKKARA VEETU MURIYIL, MUTHATHARA VILLAGE, POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 026. W.P.(C). NO.13548/2011-P: 7. IZUDEEN, S/O.ALIKANNU, A.K.BUILDINGS, T.C.45/228, BEEMAPALLI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 026. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.M. CHARISMA, R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR, R7 BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN, SMT.M.A.ZOHRA, SRI.R.S.MADHU, SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.13548/2011-P: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN I.A. NO. 2465/2011 IN O.S. NO. 460/2011. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 06/05/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE SUBMISSION OF EXT.P.2. TO THE R.3. EXT.P.3.A: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDNECING THE SUBMISSION OF EXT.P.2. TO THE R.1. EXT.P.3.B: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE SUBMISSION OF EXT.P.2. TO THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE O.S. 347/2011 FILED BY THE R.7 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE I.A. FILED IN O.S. 347/2011 SEEKING INJUNCTION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R7.A: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT TO THE ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER, SHANGHUMUKHAM AND THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POONTHURA AND SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VALIYATHURA ON 06/04/2011. EXT.R7(B) (1) (2) & (3): COPY OF THE RECEIPTS OF THE EXT.R7.(1) REPRESENTATION. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.13548 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J: Petitioner has come to this Court claiming issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection for the petitioner against illegal, culpable and violent conduct that is apprehended from respondents 4 to 7. 2. Respondents 4 and 5 are the brothers-in-law of the petitioner. Respondent No.6 is the husband of his sister-in- law. Respondent No.7 is a person, who stakes claim of an item of property, which according to the petitioner, belongs to him. There are disputes between the parties about the rights over the property allegedly sold to the petitioner by his mother-in-law. Parties have already appeared before the civil court in the pending suits. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that respondents 4 to 7 are threatening, intimidating and compelling him to withdraw the civil proceedings initiated by him. His limited prayer is that a W.P.(C).NO.13548 OF 2011 : 2 : direction may be granted against such illegal conduct on the part of respondents 4 to 7. 3. Respondents 4, 5 and 7 have entered appearance. They have a different story altogether to narrate. According to them, the mother-in-law of the petitioner was fraudulently induced to send some documents allegedly at a time when she was observing Iddat following the death of her husband. Petitioner is staking false claims over the property of the mother-in-law on the strength of that document. Mother-in- law had in fact executed a document assigning her rights to the 7th respondent. Both 7th respondent and the petitioner are before the civil court. Interim orders have been passed. There is no attempt what so ever on the part of respondents 4 to 7 to cause any threat, intimidation or harm to the life or person of the petitioner. There is no demand on the part of respondents 4 to 7 to the petitioner to abandon the suit and withdraw his contentions. The truth is that the petitioner is indulging in contumacious, culpable and violent conduct to threaten the respondents. It may be recorded that respondents 4 to 7 have no intention what so ever to W.P.(C).NO.13548 OF 2011 : 3 : attack the petitioner to compel him to withdraw or abandon the civil suit. Protection may be granted to the respondents against the illegal conduct of the petitioner for which the 7th respondent has already filed an application before police. 4. Notice was given to the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader submits that against the petitioner a complaint has been lodged by his wife and that is pending investigation under Section 498 A of IPC. In the perception of the police, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. If either party indulges in contumacious, culpable and violent conduct against the other, such party can file complaint before the police whereupon necessary action in accordance with law shall be taken by the 3rd respondent to abate such threat or harm, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. We take note of the allegations and counter allegations raised. We take note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader. We are satisfied that it is not necessary to permit the petitioner to arm himself with an W.P.(C).NO.13548 OF 2011 : 4 : order of police protection now. We take note of the submission of respondents 4, 5 and 7 that they do not intend to indulge in any such conduct as apprehended by the petitioner. We take note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if there be any contumacious or culpable acts by either party, the other can complain and thereupon the police shall take necessary action. We are persuaded to agree that no specific directions are now necessary. Accepting the submission of the learned Government Pleader, this petition is dismissed with the above order. Sd/= R. BASANT, JUDGE. Sd/= K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. /True Copy/ P.S. to Judge. cl