IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 5468 of 2011(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THAMARAKSHAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 63 YEARS, USHA MANDIRAM, THALEMEL MURIYIL, ANCHAL VILLAGE, PATHANAMPURAM TALUK, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- *1. SANTHOSH @ UNNI, YOURS CHOICE, ANCHUMANA, PALARIVATTOM.P.O. - 682 025. - CORRECTED: THE ADDRESS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS: SIVAPRASAD @ UNNI, S/O. THAMARAKSHAN, AGED 35 YEARS, ANCHUMANA, PALARIVATTOM.P.O. - AS PER ORDER DTD.11/04/2011 IN I.A.NO.6480/2011. 2. ROJA @ JYOTHI.B.R., GOKULATHIL, JYOTHISH MANDIRAM, THALEMELURIYIL, ANCHAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM - 689 695. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,PUNALUR - 691 305. 4. THE C.I. OF POLICE, ANCHAL - 691 305. R2 BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.5468/2011 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 3/11/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2: COPY OF THE O.P.820/2010 FILED BEFORE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. R3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 18/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.5468 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th April, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner, an elderly person aged about 63 years, has come to this Court with this petition claiming issue of directions to respondents 3 and 4 to afford protection to the petitioner against culpable, contumacious, wanton and violent acts of respondents 1 and 2, his son and daughter in law. 2. According to the petitioner, he had settled an item of property in favour of respondents 1 and 2, his son and daughter in law. He has subsequently executed a revocation deed. According to the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 are indulging in contumacious and violent acts against the petitioner because of the execution of the revocation deed. It is hence that he has come to this Court with this petition for police protection. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have entered appearance through different counsel. There, obviously, is a dispute WPC No.5468/2011 2 between respondents 1 and 2. Respondent No.1 practically endorses the request of the petitioner and does not oppose the said prayer. The second respondent on the contrary contends that the petitioner and respondent No.1 are acting in collusion. According to the second respondent, vexatious proceedings are initiated by the petitioner at the instance of the first respondent. Ext.R2 proceedings are pending before the Family Court under which she has claimed relief against the petitioner as also the first respondent. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition without bonafides by arraying both the first and second respondents together as respondents. There is no threat to the life of the petitioner emanating from the first respondent or the second respondent. To steal a march over the second respondent in her disputes with the first respondent, the petitioner is only lending a helping hand to the first respondent, contends the learned counsel for the second respondent. 4. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that in the perception of the police officials, there is no threat whatsoever against the life of the petitioner from either respondent No.1 or respondent WPC No.5468/2011 3 No.2. Of course, there is a property dispute. Parties have been advised to go to the civil court and seek appropriate orders. Evidently, there are disputes between the first and second respondents and there are no disputes between the petitioner and the first respondent. In these circumstances, the learned Government Pleader submits that no directions under Article 226 are liable to be issued. If the petitioner has any genuine grievance or apprehension of contumacious and culpable conduct on the part of respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner can complain to the police and necessary action shall promptly be taken. No blanket direction for police protection is necessary, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The contention that the petitioner is only attempting to help the first respondent in his dispute with the second respondent does appear to be very probable and acceptable. We do not want to record any final opinion on that question. Suffice it to say that, we are not, in the facts and circumstances of this case, persuaded to invoke our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Maintenance of law and order and the WPC No.5468/2011 4 prevention of crimes is the duty of the police and the police have to discharge their duty even without specific directions of this Court. Of course, in the peculiar facts of the given case, this Court does have jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue such specific directions, if any, necessary. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded to agree that there is any need for this Court to issue any such direction. We are taking note of the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that if there be any genuine complaint or threat of commission of culpable acts against the petitioner, the petitioner can complain to the police and the police shall take necessary action. We are not persuaded to issue any specific directions. 6. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed accepting the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ WPC No.5468/2011 5 R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.5468 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th March, 2011 ORDER Basant, J. Respondent No.1 has entered appearance through counsel. Respondent No.2 is not served. Notice is not WPC No.5468/2011 6 returned. Verify service and call again on 18.3.2011. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/