IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1825 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEEBA THAJ, W/O.THAJ MUHAMMED, AGED 34 YEARS, VAHATH, ERUVA MURI, PANNIYOOR VILLAGE KAREELAKULANGARA PO, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHAJAHAN ABDUL KHADER, POCKATT HOUSE, ERUVA WEST, KAREELAKLANGARA PO KAYAMKULAM - 690 572. 2. MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN PROPRIETOR, MOTOR SHOPPE, OPP.RAINBOW AUDITORIUM KAYAMKULAM - 690 572. 3. SHAMSUDHEEN, MENANTHARAYIL HOUSE KANNAMPALLY BHAGOM, KAYAMKULAM 690 572. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION 690 572. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION 690 572. 6. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA 688 001. *ADDL. R7 IMPLEADED ADD.R7: THAJ MUHAMMED VAHATH, ERUVA MURI, PANNIYOOR VILLAGE, KAREELAKULANGARA P.O., KAYAMKULAM. ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 24-01-2011 IN I.A.NO.1133/11. ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX FOR R1-3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.CHARISHMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: pm R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.1825 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner, a woman, has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 4 to 6 to afford her police protection against the threat to her life and person posed by respondents 1 to 3. 2. Respondent No.1 is the brother-in-law of the petitioner. Respondents 2 and 3 are the uncles of the first respondent. When the matter came up for admission, after discussions at the Bar, the husband of the petitioner, i.e. the brother of the first respondent has been arrayed as the additional seventh respondent. 3. It is now admitted that there is a civil dispute between the husband of the petitioner (additional R7) and the first respondent. That dispute is about the boundary between the adjacent properties belonging to them. The first respondent is admittedly employed abroad. It is wpc No.1825/2011 2 further submitted that he is not available in India at the moment. According to the petitioner, because of the animosity between respondents 1 and 7, respondents 1 to 3 are likely to indulge in culpable conduct to threaten the safety and security of the petitioner. Respondents 1 to 3 pose a threat to the life and person of the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to respondents 4 to 6. 4. Respondents 1 to 3 have entered appearance through a counsel. The learned counsel submits that the allegations are absolutely baseless and bereft of bonafides. The first respondent has gone abroad and to perceive any threat to the life and person of the petitioner from the first respondent would be ridiculous. So far as respondents 2 and 3 are concerned, they are the maternal uncles of the first and seventh respondents. They do not want to get involved in the property dispute between the first and seventh respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition without any bonafides to steal a march over respondents 1 to 3 in the civil dispute between the additional seventh respondent and the first respondent. It is in these wpc No.1825/2011 3 circumstances prayed that this petition may be dismissed. 5. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that in the perception of respondents 4 to 6, there is no threat either to the petitioner or her husband, the additional seventh respondent from respondents 1 to 3. It is true that there are certain property disputes between the brothers. However, the police do not find any merit in the apprehension that there is any threat to the life or person of the petitioner. If there is any such threat posed to the life of the petitioner, respondents 4 to 6 shall take effective action to deter any such threat. According to the police, there is absolutely no necessity to issue any specific directions in favour of the petitioner now. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations raised in Ext.P1, on the basis of which a crime has been registered, clearly show that there was an attempt to cause the death of the petitioner and the seventh respondent by the first respondent. Though it is described as a road traffic accident, according to the petitioner, it was actually an attempt to do away with the wpc No.1825/2011 4 petitioner and her husband. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 in this context points out that the sequence of events – considering the fact that Exts.P1 to P3 have been filed on the very same day, i.e. on 6/1/2011, must knock the bottom out of the purported bonafides in the grievance raised by the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader submits that the investigation reveals that Ext.P1 complaint is not true and genuine and the same was filed only as part of an attempt to vex and harass the first respondent who had to leave the place of employment abroad, shortly, after 6.1.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehementally argues that the incident had taken place and the injured were admitted in the hospital on 4.1.2011. But the F.I. statement was not recorded till 6.1.2011. That was recorded only after complaints were made to the higher ups in the police. In these circumstances, no inferences adverse to the petitioner can be drawn from the fact that Exts.P1 to P3 are all dated 6.1.2011. 7. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We take note of the submission of the learned Government wpc No.1825/2011 5 Pleader that in the perception of police officials, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. We record the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 that they have no intention whatsoever to pose any threat to the life and person of the petitioner. We also record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if there be any threat to the life or person of the petitioner, the police shall take necessary and appropriate action. We are not in these circumstances satisfied that any further direction deserves to be issued. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/