IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 19957 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SUNEER P.M., S/O MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 35 YEARS, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, OLIKUZHI, BISMI NAGAR, VAZHAKKALA, KAKKANAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA. 2. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. 3. MUHAMMED KUNJU, S/O HANEEFA, PARAYAMOOLA HOUSE, CHITTETHUKARA, C.E.P.Z, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. NAZEEMA, D/O HANEEFA, PARAYAMOOLA HOUSE, CHITTETHUKARA, C.E.P.Z., KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.P.T.SEBASTIAN FOR R3 & 4 SRI.K.M.SUBIAR FOR R3 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.19957/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER IN CHARGE OF CO-OPERATIVE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL AT KALAMASSERY. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5.7.07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.3.2008 ADDRESSED TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ACCIDENT CUM WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 21.6.08 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER, CO-OPERATIVE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KALAMASSERY. EXT.P5: TRUE COY OF THE DISCHARGE REFERENCE CARD DATED 24.6.08 ISSUED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KALAMASSERY. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.913/04 DATED 29.3.04. EXT.P6(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENTIAL/OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE NO.A1/2004 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.19957 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is a gulf returnee. He is working in a hair dressing saloon at Kakkanad. The 4th respondent is his wife and the 3rd respondent is his wife's brother. The petitioner submits, the marriage between him and the 4th respondent has been severed by his pronouncing Talak as per the Muslim Law. But, even thereafter, the 4th respondent is residing in his house. With the help of the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent has kicked him out. At present, he is staying with his sister. The allegations of manhandling him by respondents 3 and 4 is supported by Exhibit P1 accident-cum-wound certificate. He has filed Exhibits P2 and P3 representations before the police pointing out the criminal actions of the 4th respondent which includes causing injury to him by biting. But the police, did not take any effective action. In the above background, this writ petition is filed. 2. As directed by this Court, the first respondent has filed a statement, in which it is submitted that in fact the petitioner is the perpetrator of atrocities on the 4th respondent and he is an accused in Crime No.383/07 of Thrikkakara Police Station registered under Section 498A of the IPC. He has taken into his possession, the 4th respondent's W.P.(C)No.19957/08 -2- SSLC certificate, ration card, voter ID card and birth certificate of the younger child. She is maintaining herself and her two children born out of the wedlock with the petitioner, by working as a domestic servant in the neighbourhood. All the allegations made by the petitioner are unfounded, it is submitted. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations made by the first respondent in his statement filed before this Court. He has reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition and has also produced Exhibit P6 title deed which would show that the property in which the 4th respondent now resides, belongs to him. 4. Having regard to the facts of the case, we feel that it is not proper for this Court to ask the police to render any protection to the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the omission of the police to register a crime against the 4th respondent, based on the information lodged by him, he may move the competent criminal court and seek appropriate reliefs. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn