IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 34997 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MRS.SANTHAKUMARI, WIFE OF LATE SRI.VIKRAMAN THAMPI,AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT TSGRA-3,TC 24/321,MANOJ NIVAS, THYCAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MRS.MINIKUMARY,DAUGHTER OF SANTHAKUMARI, AGED 39 YEARS,RESIDING AT TSGRA-3,TC 24/321, MANOJ NIVAS,THYCAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DILEEPKUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS,RESIDING AT TSGRA-3,TC 24/321, MANOJ NIVAS,THYCAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MRS.MANJU,DAUGHTER OF SANTHAKUMARI, AGED 38 YEARS,RESIDING AT TSGRA-3,TC 24/321, MANOJ NIVAS,THYCAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.SURESH SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, (THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY),OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER,THYCAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (CANTONMENT POLICE STATION), CANTONMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION), THAMPANOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SANTOSHKUMAR ALIAS UNNI, SON OF CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,SANTHA NIVAS, TC 25/725,OPPOSITE WOMAN & CHILDRAN HOSPITAL,THYCAUD P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. ABISH ALIAS KUTTU,SON OF SANTOSHKUMAR, SANTHA NIVAS,TC 25/725,OPPOSITE WOMAN & CHILDRAN HOSPITAL,THYCAUD P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R5-6 BY GOVT. PLEADER DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN (R1-2) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.34997/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/9/2009. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15/10/2009 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE DGP DATED 19/10/2009. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.578/09 DATED 24/10/2009 PREPARED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE POSTER PUBLISHED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO HARASS THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE POSTER AFFIXED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO HARARSS THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON. MINISTER FOR EDUACTION DATED 24/10/2009; EXT.P8: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.606/09 DATED 15/11/2009 PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.730/09 DATED 15/11/2009 PREPARED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY ADV. G.S. SANAL KUMAR TO THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS. EXT.P11: COPY OF REPLY NOTICE SENT BY ADV. V.SURESH TO ADV. G.S. SANAL KUMAR DATED 27/11/2009. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.34997 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioners in this writ petition under Article 226 seek protection for their lives from the alleged atrocities and contumacious acts being perpetrated against them by respondents 5 an 6. 2. Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudheer learned counsel appearing for the party respondents 5 and 6 submits that all the allegations levelled in the writ petition against his clients are baseless. He sought for time to file counter. 3. Sri.V.Suresh learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the police have registered as many as three crimes against the party respondents. There is subsisting threat to the lives of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the party respondents submitted that all the above three crimes are false cases and the police will become obliged to file refer WPC.No.34997/2009 2 reports. Whatever that be, having considered the rival submissions we feel that the relationship between the petitioners and the party respondents has become strained to a point of no return. Under the above circumstances, we direct the 4th respondent to keep vigil over the petitioners as well as the party respondents and their places of residence and to ensure that disputes between the petitioners and the party respondents do not give rise to any law and order situations or acts of violence. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk