IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14957 of 2008(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- MUHAMMED SHAREAR, S/O.MUHAMMED, AL-AMEEN MANZIL, PROPRIETOR, HINDUSTAN GLASS HOUSE, J.J.COMPLEX, K.P.ROAD, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI.SALIM V.S. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ADOOR. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR. 4. S.I. OF POLICE, ADOOR. 5. ABDUL RASHEED, 'SAFA', KANNAMKODU MURI, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 6. K.G.VIJU, S/O.GOPI, KIZHAKKINETH VEEDU, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 7. ROSHAN JACOB, S/O.JACOB, 'BEENA DAY', KILIYILETHU AYYENKOZHIKKAL MURI, VADAKKEDATHU KAVU P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 8. TAJUDHEEN, S/O.MOIDEEN PILLAI, THANSEER MANZIL, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENAJMIN PAUL – R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ - R5 TO 8 SRI.B.BALRAJ - R5 TO 8 SRI.SAJJU.S - R5 TO 8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.14957/2008 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN LODGED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 17/05/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION REQUESTING POLICE PROTECTION DTD.17/05/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R5(A): COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 20/05/2008 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 14957 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner is running a shop in the name and style Hindustan Glass House in J.J.Complex, K.P.Road, Adoor in a building taken on rent from one Smt. Elizabath on the strength of a rent deed executed on 25-4-2007. The 5th respondent is his brother. He belongs to the ruling party. Respondents 6 to 8 are the friends of the 5th respondent. The petitioner submits that respondents 5 to 8 are threatening the petitioner and causing obstruction to the functioning of the shop due to personal grudge against him. On complaint being filed before the third respondent, the obstruction was temporarily removed. After some time the above said respondents again repeated their illegal actions. On 17-5-2008, when the petitioner came to the shop, he found that the shop was closed using an iron chain and a red flag was also hoisted in front of his shop room. The petitioner was threatened and chased by the 5th respondent. So he filed Ext.P5 complaint before the third respondent stating the above W.P.(C)NO. 14957/2008 -2- facts and also seeking protection. He also filed Ext.P2 representation before the Circle Inspector of Police. But no effective action was taken by the police. Therefore, this writ petition is filed seeking the following relief. “ to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner's shop and life from the continuing threat of the respondents 5 to 8 and their henchmen.” 3. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the party respondents. He submits that respondents 6 to 8 are mediators in a dispute between him and the petitioner. The petitioner owes some money to the 5th respondent. The dispute between them has been settled on 20-5-2008 at the instance of the mediators and Ext.R5(a) is the agreement. He also submitted that the writ petition has been filed without any bona fides. The learned counsel for the petitioner upon instruction submitted that Ext.R5(a) agreement was entered into by the petitioner under the threat and coercion exerted by the 5th respondent and his supporters. W.P.(C)NO. 14957/2008 -3- 4. The learned Government Pleader upon instruction submitted that on receiving information from the petitioner, the police rushed to the scene on 17-5-2008. Both parties were called to the police station, but they did not come. It is also submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. 5. We heard learned counsel on both sides. 6. The dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent has to be settled, if it is not so far settled, before other forums and not by the police. 7. Having regard to the nature of the dispute between the parties, we feel that this is not a fit case to direct the police to help one side or other. The petitioner may invoke the ordinary remedies available to him under law by moving the competent civil/criminal court. But this will not affect the powers of the police to take action in accordance with law, if any cognizable offence is reported. Subject to the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI ks. JUDGE W.P.(C)NO. 14957/2008 -4- ks.