IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1429 of 2008(S) ---------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.34584/2007 Dated 07/07/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. SAFIYA BEEVI, W/O.LATE MUHAMMAD HANEEFA, AGED 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT PLAVARAKADAYIL VEEDU, PACHIRA, PALLIPPURAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 2. M.MUHAMMAD RAFI, S/O.LATE MUHAMMAD HANEEFA, AGED 34 YEARS, PLAVARAKADAYIL VEEDU PACHIRA, PALLIPPURAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.THOMAS ABRAHAM MR.DIPU.R SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW MR.K.S.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ SRI.V.JAYACHANDRAN,(FATHER'S NAME , AGE AND RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS) THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ================================ Cont. Case (C) No. 1429 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners herein were the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.34584 of 2007. They approached this Court alleging that their lives are in danger because of the high-handed and criminals action of respondents 4 to 7. Since the said respondents did not appear, this Court issued the following order in the Writ Petition: “Though, notice was served on respondents 4 to 7, no one appeared for them. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, if there is any threat to the life of the petitioners, they may inform the 3rd respondent. In that event, the said respondent shall take necessary action in accordance with law to protect the life of the petitioners.” Alleging that respondents 4 to 7 therein threatened and attempted to attack the second petitioner, he filed Annexure A3 representation before the Sub Inspector of Police. It was followed by other representations before the superior officers. The first petitioner preferred Annexure A6 COC 1429/08 -: 2 :- representation before the Sub Inspector of Police pointing out the criminal actions on the part of respondents 4 to 7 and praying to give necessary protection. Alleging that the police did not take any action and thereby the Sub Inspector of Police has wilfully disobeyed the direction of this Court, the contempt application was filed. 2. The Sub Inspector of Police has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegation of the petitioners. In the said affidavit he has stated as follows: “It is humbly submitted that this respondent have utmost respect towards the orders and directions issued by this Honourable Court and this respondent shall faithfully comply with the directions of this Honourable Court. Annexure A2 judgment was received by this respondent on 14.7.2008. Thereafter in strict compliance of the directions contained in the judgment this respondent have taken steps to afford protection to the petitioner. It is humbly submitted that no complaints from the part of the petitioners were received by the police till 23.8.2008. On 23.8.2008 the 2nd petitioner along with one Irshad attacked the fourth respondent in the writ petition causing injuries to the head and contusion all over the body. A crime has been registered against the 2nd petitioner herein and his nephew as Crime No.224/08 u/s 341, 324, 294B, 308 read with section 34 IPC. Now the 2nd petitioner herein and his nephew are absconding. It is humbly submitted that under the guise of Annexure A2 judgment the 2nd petitioner herein and his nephew have attacked the fourth respondent in the writ petition. It is also brought to the notice of this COC 1429/08 -: 3 :- Honourable Court that the police have interfered in the matter timely and firmly, faithfully complying with the directions of this Honourable Court. There is no threat to the life of the petitioners. The Contempt of Court Case itself is filed subsequent to the registering of the crime against the 2nd petitioner and his nephew. 3. The allegations made by the petitioner that they were not given protection and the police have not acted on their complaints are absolutely false. I further undertake that the orders passed by this Honourable Court will be faithfully complied with by this respondent in its letter and spirit. In the above circumstances the above Contempt of Court Case may be dismissed.” The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit denying the averments in the counter affidavit and also reiterating their stand taken in the contempt application. 3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. Going by the affidavit of the respondent, it is seen that on the strength of the orders passed by this Court, the second petitioner has started to attack his neighbours and therefore the police has to register a case against him. The petitioners would point out that the crime has been registered based on false allegations and the accused have been granted bail, by the Sessions Court. Having regard to the allegations and counter allegations, we feel that it is not expedient or necessary to proceed with the contempt proceedings against the respondent. The petitioners may invoke the++ remedies available to them before the competent criminal COC 1429/08 -: 4 :- and civil courts to redress their grievances. Further, we notice the undertaking in the affidavit of the respondent that he will comply with the direction of this Court in its letter and spirit. In the result, the contempt application is closed. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 3/2