IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16104 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ANEESH, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ENGANDIYOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER IBRAHIM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPPAD. 3. RADHAKRISHNAN.K.A, S/O. AYYAPPANKUTTY, KANAKKASSERY HOUSE, MELOR.P.O, ADICHILL VIA, CHALAKKUDY 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VATANAPPALLY POLICE STATION, VATANAPPALLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. GP, SHRI. C. M. KAMMAPPU SRI.SARVOTHAMAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16104 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.27.6.2009 IN CRL. M.C. 967/09 PASSED BY SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 15.5.2010 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS : NIL // TRUE COPY // K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 16104 of 2010 K - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner and his family members. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner and the third respondent were business partners. The partnership is not in existence and the petitioner has started his own business. Infuriated by this, the third respondent and his henchmen are threatening and attacking the petitioner and forcing him to sign some documents. On 15.5.2010, the petitioner was attacked. He sought assistance from the police. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the third respondent as also the learned Government Pleader. W.P.(C).No. 16104 of 2010 2 4. Learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the allegations raised against him are not correct. He never threatened the petitioner and he has no intention to threaten him. 5. We record the said submission and close this Writ Petition, without pronouncing on the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner against the third respondent. In view of the apprehension made by the petitioner, we direct respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate protection to the life of the petitioner as against the third respondent as and when required. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm