IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7399 of 2011(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SHANAVAS, S.N.MANZIL, POLICE MUKKU, KATTUPURAM, PULIMATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SHEEBA, W/O.SHANAVAS, S.N.MANZIL, POLICE MUKKU, KATTUPURAM, PULIMATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,ATTINGAL-695 101. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA-695 014. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. BADSHAD, SHINI MANZIL, KATTUPRAM, PULIMATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 014. 6. JUMAILA, W/O.BADSHAD, SHINI MANZIL, KATTUPURAM, PULIMATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 014. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R6 BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.7399/2011 Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.156/2011 DTD. 26/02/2011 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA WOMEN'S COMMISSION DTD. 24/02/011. P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DTD. 28/02/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R6(A): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 24/01/2011 SUBMITTED BY 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R6(B): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 24/02/2011 SUBMITTED BY 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL. R6(C): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 27/02/2011 SUBMITTED BY 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.7399 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioners - spouses, have come before this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 2 to 4, police officials under the first respondent State, to afford protection to the petitioners from the culpable and violent conduct of respondents 5 and 6. 2. According to the petitioners, respondents 5 and 6 are related to the petitioners. They are neighbours. There are certain disputes between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 5 and 6 on the other. Respondents 5 and 6 are taking law into their hands and are attempting to assault, vex and harass the petitioners. The police are guilty of inaction. In these circumstances, the petitioners have come to this Court seeking directions. 3. Respondent No.6 has entered appearance through counsel. Respondent No.5 is the husband of respondent No.6. The learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that WPC No.7399/2011 2 respondent No.5 is a person employed abroad and he is not available in India now. The assertion that the petitioners apprehend danger from the fifth respondent who is not available in India and the sixth respondent who is a woman, is without any merit whatsoever. The real dispute has been suppressed. False allegations are conveniently made in this writ petition. As a matter of fact, the genesis of the dispute is totally different. When respondent No.5 was employed abroad, one Jalaludheen, the brother of the sixth respondent was also there. The said Jalaludheen was running a company. According to the sixth respondent, the said Jalaludheen owed amounts to the sixth respondent. When both were in India, fifth respondent demanded return of money from Jalaludheen. Jalaludheen, the brother of the sixth respondent is the nephew of the first petitioner. To oblige Jalaludheen, false assertions and allegations are being raised by the petitioners. It may be recorded that respondent No.6 undertakes on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 that they shall not indulge in any contumacious, culpable or violent conduct against the petitioners. In fact, respondents 5 and 6 apprehend danger from the petitioners and the said Jalaludheen. Complaints have already been made before the police. Crimes have been registered. In these circumstances, it WPC No.7399/2011 3 is absolutely unnecessary to issue any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter in favour of the petitioners now. It may be ensured that the sixth respondent faces no danger from the petitioners and the said Jalaludheen, submits the learned counsel for the sixth respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners on the contrary submits that there have been attempts to assault the petitioners and the petitioners were obliged to complain before the police. The police have not taken any effective action. It is hence that the petitioners are obliged to come before this Court. 5. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that at the moment, in the perception of respondents 2 to 4, the petitioners face no threat from the sixth respondent who is available in India or from the fifth respondent who is abroad. If there be any such threat for the petitioners from respondents 5 or 6 or for respondents 5 and 6 from the petitioners or the said Jalaludheen, necessary and prompt action shall be taken by respondents 2 to 4. No specific directions under Article 226 are necessary in these circumstances, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. We take note of the submissions made on behalf of the sixth respondent. We take note of the submissions and WPC No.7399/2011 4 undertaking of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 2 to 4. We are satisfied in these circumstances that the petitioners cannot be said to have any real or reasonable apprehension from the sixth respondent, a woman who is available in India and the fifth respondent who has already left the country for his place of employment abroad. We accept the undertaking of the learned Government Pleader that necessary action shall be taken to ensure law and order. No further directions are necessary. 7. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/