IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15545 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JOSEPH, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O. KURIAN, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, ST. THOMAS NAGAR, MANGAD.P.O, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.THYPARAMBIL THOMAS THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANITHA CELL, KOLLAM. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 4. DILEEP, SNEHA NAGAR, HOUSE NO. 104, VALUVILA VEEDU, MANGAD.P.O, KOLLAM. 5. SAMUEL, MINI BHAVAN, MANGAD.P.O, KOLLAM. 6. GAMALLEL, KUZHUVILA VEEDU, MANGAD.P.O, KOLLAM. 7. ALEXANDER MINI BHAVAN, MANGAD.P.O, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1-3 ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15545 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DT.10.5.2009 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.4.5.2010 BY THE DAUGHTER OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.14.5.2010. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXT.R7(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE MASS COMPLAINT DATED 23.4.10 FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER BEFORE THE WOMENS' CELL, KOLLAM. EXT.R7(b): A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.24.5.10 BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R7(c) : A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAITN DT.24.5.2010 BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE. EXT.R7(d) : A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAITN DT.24.5.10 BEFORE HOME MINISTER. // TRUE COPY// K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 15545 of 2010 P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking th following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his family. ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his family at least till the finalisation of Crime No., 226/2009 of Kilikolloor Police Station. iii) issue a writ of mandamus directing 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry of the incident W.P.(C).No. 15545 of 2010 2 and register a crime against 2nd respondent and respondents 4 to 7 as per Ext.P3 complaint.” 2. As far as prayer No.(iii) is concerned, straight away we are of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable. We leave it open to the petitioner to pursue whatever remedy the petitioner has in regard to the said prayer. As regards prayers (i) and (ii) are concerned, briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. 3. Petitioner is an age old man. His daughter is running a medical store at Mangad and his son-in-law is working in United States. On 10.5.2009 the 5th respondent attacked the house of the petitioner, destroyed the front door of the house and torn off the blouse of the petitioner's daughter. Crime No. 226 of 2009 was registered by the third respondent. Ext.P1 is the copy of the F.I.R. 4. There are allegations with regard to the widening of the pathway. The petitioner was prepared to give additional land for the same. But the 5th respondent entered the property and encroached more W.P.(C).No. 15545 of 2010 3 land. The 5th respondent has not given any property for widening the pathway. Later the wife of the 5th respondent filed suit O.S. 562 OF 2009 before the Munsiff Court, Kollam stating that the petitioner and others are trying to occupy her land. 5. Later respondents 5 and 7 threatened the petitioner to withdraw the crime registered by his daughter. Hence she filed a complaint before the second respondent. On 6.5.2010 the second respondent called the parties to the police station. There respondents 4 to 7 abused the petitioner, his wife and daughter in filthy language. Thereafter the petitioner filed Exts.P3 representation before the Superintendent of Police. 5. A counter affidavit was filed by respondents, 4, 5 and 7, in which they have produced Exts. R7(a) to R7(d). 6. We heard learned counsel for the parties. We have already passed an interim order granting protection to the life of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the party respondents would point out that the real problem arises out of the conduct of the petitioner's W.P.(C).No. 15545 of 2010 4 daughter using abusive language. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the writ petition as follows. The interim order is made absolute. We make it clear that this will not stand in the way of the police officials concerned to look into the complaint of respondents 4, 5 and 7 and also any complaint filed by the neighbours, in accordance with law. We further make it clear that if the matter is pursued before any authority, the authority will consider the matter untrammeled by anything contained in this judgment. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm