IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16694 of 2011(J) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- CHACKO KURIAN @ BIJU, S/O.KURIAN, AGED 40 YEARS, PARAYIL HOUSE, CHAMATHACHAL P.O., PAYYAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYAVOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670633. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670141. 3. PHILIP KURIAN, S/O.KURIAN, AGED 55 YEARS,PARAYIL HOUSE, CHAMATHACHAL P.O., PAYYAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DISTRICT - 670143. 4. JACOB KURIAN, S/O.KURIAN, AGED 52 YEARS,PARAYIL HOUSE, CHAMATHACHAL P.O., PAYYAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670143. 5. STEPHEN KURIAN, S/O.KURIAN, AGED 46YEARS,PARAYIL HOUSE, CHAMATHACHAL P.O.,PAYYAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670143. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 & R2, R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R3-5 BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 16694/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION ISSUED FROM SREEKRISHNA POLY CLINIC, PAYYAVOOR TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17/06/2011. P2: COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION ISSUED FROM TALIPARAMBA TALUK GOVERNMENT HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL TO THE PETITONER DATED 19/06/2011. P3: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.16694 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J: The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2, police officials under the 6th respondent State, to afford protection for the life of the petitioner against contumacious, culpable and violent acts on the part of respondents 3 to 5. 2. According to the petitioner, respondents 3 to 5 are his brothers. He is the second youngest son of his parents. The youngest son has already expired. His father before his death had executed a Will bequeathing his properties to the petitioner herein. Respondents 3 to 5 are aggrieved by the said Will. They have turned inimical to the petitioner because of such Will executed by the father of the petitioner. Infuriated by the preference shown to the petitioner by their father, they are indulging in contumacious, culpable and violent acts against the petitioner. The short W.P.(C).NO.16694 OF 2011 : 2 : prayer of the petitioner is that protection may be afforded to the life and person of the petitioner against any attempt by respondents 3 to 5 to cause harm to his life and person. 3. Respondents 3 to 5 have entered appearance. The learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 submits that respondents 3 to 5 do not accept that any valid Will has been executed by their father in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is attempting to steal a march over respondents 3 to 5 in the dispute between them about the validity of the Will which is claimed to have been executed by their father. There is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner at all. Respondents 3 to 5 undertake that they shall not indulge in any such contumacious, culpable or violent conduct against the petitioner, but the petitioner may not be permitted to arm himself with an order of police protection which is likely to be clandestinely misused by the petitioner against respondents 3 to 5 in the dispute regarding the Will. 4. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that in the perception of respondents 1 W.P.(C).NO.16694 OF 2011 : 3 : and 2 there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. There is of course a dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 3 to 5 on the other about the validity of the Will which is alleged to have been executed by their father. The police do not want to intervene in that dispute. Parties will have to seek appropriate directions from the civil court on that dispute. However, if there be any threat against the life or person of the petitioner from respondents 3 to 5, the police shall without intervening in the civil dispute between the parties, afford protection to the petitioner. No directions under Article 226 are hence necessary, it is submitted. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 and the submission/undertaking of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, we deem it unnecessary to issue any specific direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. In the result: a. We accept the undertaking of the learned counsel W.P.(C).NO.16694 OF 2011 : 4 : for respondents 3 to 5 that respondents 3 to 5 shall not indulge in any contumacious, culpable and violent acts against the petitioner. b. We accept the submission/undertaking of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that, if there be any such contumacious, culpable and violent acts on the part of respondents 3 to 5 against the petitioner, the police shall take appropriate action to afford protection to the life and person of the petitioner without in any manner intervening in the civil disputes between them about the validity of the Will. c. Accepting the submission/undertaking, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/= R. BASANT, JUDGE. Sd/= K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. /true copy/ P.S. to Judge. cl