IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 31950 of 2010(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- HIMALA, STAR BHAVAN, CHERUVATTOOR POTTA, PARASHUVAKKAL, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM, SMT.K.P.SANTHI. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIART, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), NEYYATTINKARA. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SIMON, KALLURKONAM HOUSE, PARASHUVAKKAL, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. LAWRENCE, S.S. BHAVAN, PARASHUVAKKAL NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. SOLOMON, S.R. BHAVAN, PARASHUVAKKAL, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. VIJAYAN,VINEESH BHAVAN, PARASHUVAKKAL, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C).No. 31950 of 2010(P) 8. MOHANDAS, VINEESH BHAVAN, PARASHUVAKKAL, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. VEENUS, V.N.HOUSE, PARASHUVAKKAL, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. SELVARAJ, V.N.HOUSE, PARASHUVAKKAL, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 11. SELVARAJ, THEKKEPUTHUVAL VEETTIL, PARASHUVAKKAL, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 12. UNNIKUTTAN, THEKKEPUTHUVAL VEETTIL, PARASHUVAKKAL, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 13. VIPIN JOSE, V.N.HOUSE, PARASHUVAKKAL, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.K. VIPINDAS. R4 TO R6 & R8 TO R13 BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31950 of 2010(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE C.M.P.NO.7155/2010 FILED BEFORE THE JFMC-II, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE FIR NO.920/2010 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 03/10/2010 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATE 09/11/2010 SUBMITTD TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs K.M.JOSEPH & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C) NO.31950 OF 2010 ============================ Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. The petitioner has sought the following prayers:- “i)to call for records and ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order compelling respondents 2 and 3 to give adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner, and her 3 year old son”. 2. The petitioner is a housewife and the wife of One Sylvister, who is employed in Riyad. Respondents 4 to 13 allegedly are continuously threatening the petitioner and her husband and finally CMP No.7155 of 2010 was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara. FIR has been registered. It is stated that the reason for the animosity is a civil suit filed by the petitioner's husband against 4th respondent. It is stated that husband left for Riyad on 1.10.2010 after leave. Petitioner and her three year old son are being threatened by Wpc 31950/2010 2 respondents 4 to 13. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. It is inter alia stated as follows. “Neither me or respondents 5 to 13 never trespassed into the property of petitioner's husband nor we never cut and removed any trees. O.S.770 of 2010 was filed by petitioner's husband and not by her”. It is further alleged as follows. 3. There is no case for the petitioner's husband that they have trespassed into his property. The respondents never threatened the petitioners either before or after the departure of her husband. It is stated that according to the petitioner, the husband came to India in July, 2010. The cause of action for the civil case arose in July 2010 and she lost her pregnancy within three months of his arrival due to the problems created by the respondent. This story itself explains the falsity of the allegations, it is stated. It is stated that no such thing happened on 8.7.2010 and Ext.P4 is cooked up for the purpose of hurting the petitioner. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 13 and also learned Government Wpc 31950/2010 3 Pleader. Learned counsel for the party respondents would submit that essentially there is a civil dispute and the petitioner wants to close down a pathway and it is submitted that they have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner or her son. The learned Government Pleader also submits that crime has been registered as Crime No. 920 of 2010 of Parassala Police Station under Sections 145, 144, 147, 148, 149, 307, 426, 447, 506(ii) read with 34 IPC, as seen in Ext.P2. It is submitted that patrolling is being done to prevent any law and order situation. We record these submissions and dispose of the writ petition. We further direct that if any case of complaint of cognizable offence is filed by the petitioner against respondents 4 to 13, action in accordance with law shall be taken. We however make it clear that when the matter is considered by the civil court, it will consider the case untrammelled by anything contained in this judgment. K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI,JUDGE LGK