IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34389 of 2010(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M.NAZARUDEEN, S/O. MYTHEEN KUNJU, PROPRIETOR, A.A.V.FODD & BEVERAGES, IV/50, MAROTTICHODU, EDAPPALLY(PO), ERNAKULAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAAM CITY. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY. 3. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA. 4. A.ABDUL KALAM,AGED 62,S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, RES:AT LAKHNORE HOUSE,1ST FLOOR,MANACCAD NAGAR,113 NEAR PANICKERKULAM,PALLIMUKKU,QUILON.TEMP:RES:AT RAMZY SHIFA MANZIL,SOWHRATHA NAGAR, S.R.A.83, NEAR VANCHINAD APARTMENT,MASJID ROAD,PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-21. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.CHARISHMA R4 BY ADV. SRI.HARISH GOPINATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.34389 OF 2010: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA DATED 2.11.2010. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM DATED 6.11.2010. K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.34389 of 2010-W ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Ist respondent to provide adequate, necessary and meaningful police protection to the person and property of the petitioner and his family members. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Ist respondent to take immediate action on Ext.P2 petition and to register and enquire criminal cases against the 4th respondent and his men.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is engaged in the business of tea dust and was in acquaintance with the 4th respondent who is a non- resident Indian having business in Sharjah, U.A.E. The petitioner had certain financial dealings with the 4th respondent in the year 2005 and the whole amount due to the 4th respondent was repaid in time promptly. Now, the 4th respondent is in Kerala and is running money lending business WPC 34389/2010 -2- at Kollam. He had approached the petitioner disclosing his intention to open an office for money lending in the premises of the business firm run by the petitioner and to become his partner in business. He denied the same knowing the character and nature of money lending business of the 4th respondent. Provoked by the same on 1.11.2010 the 4th respondent along with six other goondas came to the house and to the office of the petitioner and threatened that some more amounts are due to him and it has to be paid. 3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 4th respondent. He denies the allegations. He would submit that he and the petitioner are close relatives. According to him, amounts are due to him on the basis of documents executed by the petitioner and he apprehends that in the guise of this order the intention of the petitioner is to make it appear that no amounts are due on the basis of the said documents. 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that no such incident as alleged is happened. 5. Having regard to the nature of the apprehension besides recording the submission of the learned WPC 34389/2010 -3- counsel for the 4th respondent that he never had intention and he will not cause any threat to the life of the petitioner we direct that in case the petitioner makes a complaint to the 3rd respondent of any threat to his life from the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent will look into it and if on enquiry it is found to be genuine then alone he shall give protection to the life of the petitioner as against the 4th respondent. We further make it clear that when the matter comes before any Court/forum in a lis between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, that Court/forum shall proceed to decide the matter untrammelled by anything contained in this judgment. We also make it clear that we have not pronounced on the correctness of the allegations made by the parties against each other. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS