IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 16TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 21378 of 2011(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SHAJI LAL T.K., S/O.KARUNAKARAN, RESIDING AT THOMARAKALAYIL HOUSE, KORAMPARA, POOPPARA P.O., POOPPARA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION-685 619. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DEVIKULAM POLICE STATION-685 613. 3. PANDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT S.G.P. V/87 A, KORAMPARA, POOPPAR PO, POOPPARA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK-685 619. 4. SAROJA W/O.PANDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT S.G.P. V/87 A, KORAMPARA, POOPPARA P.O POOPPARA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK-685 619. 5. VELLACHAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O.ANDAVOR, RESIDING AT S.G.P.V/87 A, KORAMPARA, POOPPARA P.O., POOPPARA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK-685 619. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 602. R1 ,R2 & R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R3,4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.21378/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.599/88 DTD. 30.3.88 OF S.R.O. RAJAKUMARI. P2:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.724/88 DTD. 16.4.88 OF S.R.O. RAJAKUMARI. P3:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. 301/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, DEVIKULAM. P4:- COPY OF THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ORDER DTD. 29.11.2010 IN IA. 1676/2010 IN OS. 301/2010 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, DEVIKULAM. P5:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 2.12.2010 GIVEN TO CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DEVIKULAM. P6:- COPY OF THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT DTD. 6.12.10 FILED BEFORE THE J.F.C.M. COURT, NEDUKANDOM. P7:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.D 3.1.2011 IN WPC. 37885/10 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 9.5.11 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, NEDUMKANDOM DTD. 1.6.2011. P10:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD 30.7.2011 FILED BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 21378 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose ,J. Petitioner has approached this court seeking protection for his own life and for the lives of his wife and other family members from what is described as threats, violence and contumacious acts of the party respondents. Learned counsel for the party respondents submitted that his clients do not intend to cause any threat to the lives of the petitioner or any member of the petitioner’s family. The dispute between the parties is essentially over a path way. The pathway dispute may not be settled by this court in this proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief the petitioner is seeking in this writ petition is only protection for life. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions received pursuant to an interim order issued by us on 5.8.2011 submitted that the averments in the writ petition are not correct. There is no threat to the life of the petitioner from respondents 3 to 5. In fact on the basis of a complaint submitted by the party respondents crime No.26/11 was registered by the Santhanpara Police in which the petitioner and his wife are accused. Subsequently the petitioner filed private WP(C).21378/2011 2 complaint before the local Magistrate. That complaint was forwarded to the police and the police accordingly have registered crime No.219/11 arraying the 4th respondent as the accused. Both crimes were thoroughly investigaged into and charge sheets were submitted in both cases. Both cases were taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate who is now trying them. At the moment there is no law and order situation warranting issuance of any direction. Sri.B.Premnath, counsel for the petitioner addressed us on the basis of the averments in the writ petition. Counsel for respondents 3 to 5 addressed us in the lines already indicated. 3. Having considered the submissions we are of the view that the direction specifically sought for need not be granted. At the same time we direct the 1st respondent to keep vigil over the place where the petitioner and the party respondents reside and to ensure that the dispute between the petitioner and the party respondents do not give rise to any law and order situation. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).21378/2011 3