IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11815 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHAHIDA SHAJAHAN, W/O.SHAJAHAN, AGED 40, PROPRIETOR, DARUL SHIFA AYURVEDIC CLINIC AND PSYCHO COUNSELING CENTRE, MUTTOM, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN SRI.P.M.MUJEEB REHIMAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION, ALUVA. 2. SANTHAKUMAR, SOPANAM HOUSE, ASWINI AYURVEDIC NURSING HOME, POOCHATTY, ERAVIMANGALAM P.O., OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SALAT THOMAS, MALAKKUDIYIL, CHELACHUVADU, IDUKKI. 4. SAFEER, PUNNAKKULANGARA, CHINGOLI P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 5. ANEES AHMED, LIBAS MANZIL, CHIKKUPARAMBU, KOCHI. 6. SHAJAHAN, KANAKADHARA MADOM, KOLLAMKODE P.O., PALAKKADU. 7. SIDDIQUE BUHARI, AL-SHIFA, N.A.D.(PO), KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. 8. JAFAR SADIQUE, KANAKADHARA, KOLLAMKODE P.O., PALAKKADU. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER MR. BENJAMIL PAUL BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH FOR R4 SRI.P.H.SHAJAHAN FOR R4 SRI.K.V.SABU FOR R3 SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY FOR R7 R8 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR FOR R8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. NO. 11815/2008 APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF LICENCE ISSUED FROM THE CHOORNIKKARA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31-3-2008 ISUED FROM -DO -DO- EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF FIR VIDE NO. 1743/2007 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28-3-2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF M,.A. PSYCHOLOGY EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTATION WITH THE INDIAN BOARD OF ALTERNTIVE MEDICINES. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF ID CARD ISSUED OT THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF LICENCE ISSUED BY THE CHOORNIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R4-(A): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERLA OF POLICE DATED 12—3-2008 BY THIS RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(B): TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT OF TH COMPLAINT. EXT.R4(C): TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 12-3-2008. EXT.R4(d) TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PULISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 29-3-2008 EXT.R4(e) RUE OCPY OF THE COMPLAINTS FILED BY HAHA MUSTHAFA DATED 2-10- 2004. EXT.R4(f) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RAISYA THAHA DATED 7-9- 2004. ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 11815 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner submits that she is a post graduate in Psychology and she is running an Ayurveda clinic and psycho counselling centre at Choornikkara Panchayath in the name and style of Darul Shifa Ayurveda Clinic and Psycho Counselling Centre. She submits that she has got all the requisite licences for running the said establishment. The 2nd respondent was the Ayurveda Doctor employed by her. Respondents 3 to 6 were the helpers engaged by her. It is pointed out that respondents 3 to 5 committed misappropriation of money and therefore, the petitioner has filed a petition before the police against them. It is submitted that a crime has been registered against the said respondents. The 2nd respondent is well off and now he is running two establishments similar to that of the petitioner in different places. Respondents 7 and 8 are in charge of those establishments. Now the petitioner has engaged a new Ayurveda Doctor and she is running her business. While so, respondents 2 to 8 are threatening and harassing the petitioner. She apprehends danger to her WPC 11815/2008 -2- life from them. So she preferred Ext.P3 representation before the police seeking protection to her and her family and also for the establishment . 2. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit alleging that the petitioner does not have any qualification. He has also produced Exts.R4 (c) and R4(d) advertisements stated to be published by her. Those advertisements would show that she is a fraud. He also points out that he is hailing from the neighbourhood of the petitioner. A crime has been registered against the petitioner at her native place for having cheated persons promising to get them visa for getting employment abroad. She has gone underground, surfaced at Aluva and started the present business. Since the 4thr respondent has filed a representation exposing the petitioner before the authorities, he is facing threat to his life from the petitioner and her men, it is submitted. The 8th respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the allegations against him are unfounded. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in answer submitted that Exts.R4(c) & (d) advertisements are not published by the petitioner and she has no connection whatsoever with them. 4. Going by the allegations and counter allegations raised in the writ petition, we feel that this is not a fit case where we should invoke the extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court to direct the police to grant WPC 11815/2008 -3- protection to the petitioner. But the petitioner may invoke the ordinary remedies available to her under law before the competent civil/criminal court. Accordingly, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.