IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 263 of 2011(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- BABU JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, THOPPIL VEEDU, P.O.AROOR, WARD-1, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.R.SUDHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AROOR POLICE STATION, AROOR, PIN-688 534. 3. JOHNY, AGED 38 YEARS, THEVANKATTU HOUSE, NEAR MARKET, AROOR, CHERTHALA, PIN-688 534. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.263/2011 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DTD. 23/10/2009 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BYTHE PETITIONER'S WIFE BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 2/11/2009. P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.31544/2009 DTD. 4/12/2009. P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 11/10/2010. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 5/02/2010 IN R.P.NO.115/2010. P6: COPY OF THE F.I.R. DTD. 27/11/2010 OF THE AROOR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. P7: COIPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DTD. 26/11/2010. P8: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 27/11/2010 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER'S WIFE BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.263 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to oblige them to grant police protection to the petitioner against the culpable, violent and objectionable conduct of respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner and respondent No.3 are neighbours. They reside in adjacent house. Relationship between them is strained. Earlier, the petitioner's wife had come to this Court with a petition for police protection and by Ext.P3 judgment, another Bench of this Court had passed orders, the relevant portion of which is extracted below. “Learned Government Pleader, on instruction, submits that there is a case and counter case. Be that as it may, there will be a direction to the police to ensure that law and order is maintained. In case, there is a request by any of the parties to provide protection for life, the same shall be granted at the expense of the party requiring the same. Writ Petition is disposed of as above”. 3. Later, the wife of the petitioner came before this Court again to review and clarify Ext.P3 judgment. The WPC No.263/2011 2 Bench which passed Ext.P3 judgment considered the matter again and rejected the review petition, but made further observations. We extract below the relevant portion of Ext.P5 judgment. “In the petition, the petitioner did not specifically raise any ground pointing out the error apparent on the face of the judgment dated 4.12.2009 for exercising the power to review the judgment. Therefore, the prayer made in the review petition is rejected. However, it is made clear that this order will not and cannot stand in the way of respondents 1 and 2 taking action in accordance with law against any of the parties to the writ petition.” According to the petitioner, now, not the wife of the petitioner, but the petitioner has chosen to wear the mantle of the petitioner in this petition. The crux of the grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of Exts.P3 and P5, respondent No.3 is continuing to indulge in contumacious conduct. A crime has been registered subsequently. In these circumstances, fresh directions may be issued, it is prayed. 4. Notice was ordered to the respondents. Respondent No.3 has entered appearance. The prayer is opposed by respondent No.3. Adequate safe guards have WPC No.263/2011 3 already been made and directions issued in Exts.P3 and P5 and it is not necessary to issue any further directions, submits the learned counsel for the third respondent. According to the third respondent, the boot is on the other leg and it is the petitioner and his family members who are indulging in objectionable and contumacious conduct. The petition is without any merit. Sufficient directions have already been issued in Exts.P3 and P5. No further directions may be issued, it is prayed. 5. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that Exts.P3 and P5 orders are being scrupulously observed. The petitioner had subsequently filed a private complaint against the third respondent before the Magistrate. It was referred to the police for investigation. In the investigation, the allegations were found to be not true and the case was referred. Still later, another crime was registered. That is Ext.P6. Investigation was completed. Necessary action was taken by the police and final report has already been filed. In the perception of respondents 1 and 2, there is no threat to the safety of the petitioner now and if at all there is any such threat, necessary action under Exts.P3 and P5 can WPC No.263/2011 4 and shall be taken. No further directions are necessary, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We are of the opinion that sufficient specific directions have already been issued in Exts.P3 and P5. We record the submission of the third respondent that the third respondent shall not in any way indulge in contumacious conduct against the petitioner or his wife. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if there is any request in terms of Exts.P3 and P5, necessary action shall be taken by the police. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that it is not necessary to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to arm the petitioner with any further orders. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/