IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29612 of 2011(B) ----------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- THANIA SABU, AGED 37 YEARS, WIFE OF SABU, NADUKKAEPEELIKIZHIYIL HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O. AND VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB SMT.RAJI.P.JOY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION, KARUKACHAL, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK - 686 540. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 3. THE C.I. OF POLICE, VAKATHANAM CIRCLE, VAKATHANAM - 686 538. 4. DEVASIYA, IKULAM HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK-686 542. 5. MOHANAN, OTTAPURACKAL HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK-686 542. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DHANESH METHEW MANJOORAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 29612 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.10.11 ISSUED TO PETITIONER RELATING TO HER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT NEDUMKUNNAM. EXT.P2 : COPY OF PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DATED 19.10.11 LODGED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER IN O.S. NO. 311/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHANGANACHERRY. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER AS I.A. 1938/2011 IN O.S. NO. 311/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHANGANACHERRY. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF INJUNCTION DATED 19.10.11 PASSED IN I.A. 1938/11 IN O.S. NO. 311/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHANGANACHERRY. EXT.P6 : COPY OF PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DATED 25.10.11 LODGED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6A : COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25.10.11 OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF 2ND RESPONDENT WHILE RECEIVING EXT.P6. EXT.P7 : COPY OF PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DATED 3.11.11 LODGED BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 29612 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose ,J. Petitioner a lady has approached this court seeking direction for police protection for her property extending to 19.75 cents of land and a house covered by sale deed No.102/05 of SRO Karukachal as well as for her life. According to her apprehending trespass into the property by respondents 4 and 5 she moved the civil court and the court has already issued Ext.P5 order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants in the suit including respondents 4 and 5 from entering into her property. In gross violation of the injunction order respondents 4 and 5 are again going to trespass into the petitioner's property. Petitioner also alleges imminent threat to her life from respondents 4 and 5 and their henchmen who are indulging all sorts of illegal activity including consumption of liquor. Eventhough Sri. Kuruvilla Jacob, learned counsel for the petitioner was very persuasive, we are not inclined to issue the WP(C) . 29612/2011 2 protection direction sought in respect of the property as the civil court is already in seizin of the matter. It is open to the petitioner to seek enforcement of Ext.P5 injunction order by the learned Munsiff. If necessary the petitioner can ask for police assistance for enforcing Ext.P5 order. Coming to the protection direction for her life, we find that the the petitioner has submitted a recent representation. If the allegations in Ext.P7 are true there is warrant for immediate action by the 2nd respondent. We are of the view that even without issuing notice to respondents 4 and 5 this writ petition can be disposed of issuing the following direction. The 2nd respondent is directed to take up Ext.P7 immediately. He will conduct an enquiry into the same either directly or through any one of his subordinate officers. If the enquiry reveals that there is threat from respondents 4 and 5 and their men it will be the obligation of the 2nd respondent to ensure that the petitioner's life and limbs are safe. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) . 29612/2011 3