IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 6992 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.K.V.KANAKAMMA, W/O.SOMANATHA PANICKER.M.S.,AGED 61 YEARS, MEPPURATHU VEEDU,KUZHIKKALA, MALLAPPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, ARANMULA,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHENCHERY. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARANMULA. 5. M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, THANNISSERIL HOUSE, KUZHIKKALA (P.O), MALLAPPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, ARANMULA,PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. M.S.ANIL KUMAR, MEPPURATHU VEEDU, KUZHIKKALA, MALLAPPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, ARANMULA,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. W.P.(C) No.6992 of 2009 : 2 : 7. M.S.SOMARAJAN, SREERAGAOM, KUZHIKKALA, MALLAPPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, ARANMULA,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. ADDL. 8. M.S.SOMANATHAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.SIVARAMA PANICKER, NOW RESIDING AT MUPPURATHU VEEDU KUZHIKKALA P.O., ARANMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA. (ADDL. R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16.3.2009 IN I.A.NO.3855 OF 2009) BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM ( R1 TO R4) BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN PHILIP FOR R5,6,7 BY ADV. SRI.R.ANIL FOR ADDL.R8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 6992 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. According to the petitioner, in spite of Ext.P2 complaint against respondents 5 to 7, no action is taken and according to her, who is a retired Professor, there is threat to her life. Though in the writ petition, it was averred that she is residing along with her husband and seeking protection for both of them, husband has entered appearance through a separate counsel and submits that no protection is required for him. There is some difficulty in accepting the statement as such made by the petitioner. 2. The learned Government, on instructions, submits that Ext.P2 complaint filed by the petitioner was enquired into, both sides were summoned to the police station and they were warned. But no crime was registered. If the petitioner is W.P.(C) No.6992 of 2009 2 not satisfied with what has been done by the police, it is always open to her to approach the Criminal Court in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure for necessary reliefs in this regard, either to file a private complaint or to seek appropriate direction. In such circumstances, we do not think, a protection as sought for, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.