IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15171 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VENKIDESH @ UNNI, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. KANNAN, OLIPARAMBU, UDAYAMPEROOR.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UDAYAMPEROOR POLICE STATION, UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRIPUNITHURA POLICE STATION TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM. 5. SUNIL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. NOT KNOWN, T 6/4979, KARAYKATTUVILA, VENGANOOR TOWN, BALARAMAPURAM.P.O, NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT GANGA TAILORS, ARAYANKAVU.P.O, ARAYANKAVU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. GANGA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. SUNDARAMANI, GANGA TAILORS, ARAYANKAVU.P.O, ARAYANKAVU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. G.P. SHRI P N SUKUMARAN FOR R1 TO 4. ADV. SRI.K.ANTONY JOSEPH FOR R5&6 SRI.K.S.SURENDRAN FOR R5&6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : THE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.14.5.2010 LODGED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS : NIL // TRUE COPY // K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 15171 of 2010 V - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the first respondent to give adequate and sufficient police protection to the life of the petitioner and his family members. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are as follows. Petitioner is an unmarried youth. There was a marriage proposal with the daughter of the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner the daughter of the 5th respondent is a minor. On getting information that the daughter of the 5th respondent is a minor, the petitioner and his parents asked for proof of age. Petitioner cannot proceed with the proposal except after satisfying that the girl has completed 18 years. There is allegation of threat by respondents 5 and 6. W.P.(C).No. 15171 of 2010 2 3. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6. 4. Learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 would submit that the said respondents have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner and his parents. 5. We record the said submission and close this Writ Petition. We also direct that in case there is any threat to the life of the petitioner and his parents from respondents 5 and 6, the first respondent shall give adequate and sufficient protection to the petitioner and his parents as against respondents 5 and 6. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm