IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 13842 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.R.GANGADHARAN, S/O RAMAN, AGED 53 YRS, PONCHALIL HOUSE, NAYATHODE, PIRAROOR.P.O., CHETTIKODE, ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANAGAMALY POLICE STATION, ANGAMALY P.O, ERNAKULAM. 2. LINTO, S/O VARGHESE, PLACKAL HOUSE, THURUTHUSSERY, NEDUMBASSERY. 3. PHILIP, S/O.VARKEY, PAVIKKODATH HOUSE, PEECHANIKKAD, PULIYANAM P.O., ANGAMALY. 4. JOLLY, S/O.PAPPU, MADASSERY HOUSE, KOTTAMAN, KALADY. 5. P.R.SIVAN, S/O.RAMAN, PONCHALIL HOUSE, POTHANIKKAD P.O, POTHANIKKAD. 6. P.R.DAMODHARAN, S/O.RAMAN, PONCHALIL HOUSE, POTHANIKKAD P.O, POTHANIKKAD. ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO FOR R2-4 SRI.V.K.VEERAVUNNY FOR R5-6 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL - R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 13842 OF 2008-W ----------------------------------------- Dated 31st October, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is a worker engaged in brass polishing. Respondents 5 and 6 are his brothers. He submits, respondents 2 to 4 are the musclemen engaged by the above said brothers. On 23.4.2008, the 2nd respondent came to his house at 6 p.m in a friendly manner, styling himself as the messenger of respondents 5 and 6. He told the petitioner that his brothers are waiting at Nedumbassery, to have a talk with him, so that the difference of opinion between him and his brothers could be sorted out. Believing the 2nd respondent, the petitioner went along with him. When they reached near the Nedumbassery Airport, respondents 3 and 4 and a few others joined the 2nd respondent. They took the petitioner by force to a remote place and obtained his signatures in some papers at dagger point. Thereupon, WPC 13842/08 2 the petitioner filed Ext.P1 petition before the police. Since no action was taken on that petition, he moved the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Aluva and a crime has been registered by the police pursuant to the forwarding of the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner submits, there is imminent threat to his life from the part of the party respondents. Therefore, this writ petition is filed, seeking police protection. 2. The respondents 2 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit, in which it is submitted that all the allegations against them are unfounded. No such incident as alleged took place on 23.4.2008. It is submitted that the said respondents purchased some land from the petitioner and his wife as per Ext.R2(a) registered sale deed. Now, respondents 5 and 6, who are the brothers of the petitioner have caused to issue a lawyer notice to them, alleging that the property conveyed by the petitioner was jointly owned by him and his brothers. Without their knowledge, respondents 2 to 4 have forged a document, transferring their rights in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner executed the sale deed in favour of respondents 2 to 4, it was alleged in the said notice. WPC 13842/08 3 Respondents 2 to 4 submit that the above action is a collusive action from the part of the brothers of the petitioner, to get the property purchased by them in good faith and for valid consideration. 3. The respondents 5 and 6 have filed a counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner and other brothers had jointly purchased a property. The petitioner, by forging a document, got the property transferred in his name and thereafter, he dealt with the same as if it belongs to him. They have taken steps to get the deed, under which their rights were transferred to the petitioner, cancelled. 4. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that Ext.P1 has not been received in the Police Station. 5. In view of the disputed questions of fact, this Court cannot act on the averments of the petitioner or grant any protection to him. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The petitioner, if so advised, may invoke the ordinary remedies available to him under WPC 13842/08 4 the Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes to redress his grievances. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/