IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28668 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANCY MATHEW,AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.LATE K.M.MATHEW,HOUSE NO.III/74F,NEAR JYOTHI NIVAS SCHOOL,U.C.COLLEGE.P.O,ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ALUVA. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL,ERNAKULAM. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM. 5. MR.P.P.JOSEPH,SENIOR OFFICER, H.D.F.C.BANK,RESIDING AT CHOICE TOWERS,MANORAMA JUNCTION,ERNAKULAM.MOB. PHONE NO.9387221950. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No.28668 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. Govt.Pleader appears for respondents 1 to 4. Notice to respondent No.5 dispensed with. 2. Petitioner tendered a First Information statement to the Station House Officer of the Aluva Police Station. The FIR so registered is Ext.P3. That is registered on 13/09/2010 at 6.30 p.m. On the next day, petitioner allegedly made Ext.P4 to the Central Zone I.G. of Police alleging that the Circle Inspector of Police is essentially advising the accused in Ext.P3 as to how he could escape from being prosecuted. Petitioner states in Ext.P4 that the fifth respondent has thereafter, along with his men, threatened the petitioner of dare consequences to her and her children and also threatened that she would not be permitted to work in Ernakulam. This is the foundation on which this writ petition has been filed on the very next day i.e. 15/09/2010. WPC.No.28668/2010 2 3. We are clear in our mind that directions for police protection in the form of a writ of mandamus and similar direction cannot be sought for as if they would follow at the drop of the hat. All that is required in the situation in hand is that Ext.P4 gains appropriate attention of the Central Zone I.G. of Police ( fourth respondent ), who will issue necessary instructions to the competent police officers to ensure the safety of the petitioner and her children. We make this order because she has already an order under the Domestic Violence Act as against her husband and may require further protective orders as may be necessary on the facts and circumstances. Writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. WPC.No.28668/2010 3 WPC.No.28668/2010 4