IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32259 of 2011(F) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ S.SIVADASAN ACHARY,AGED 65 YEARS, ANISH BHAVANAM,KADAPPA,MYNAGAPPALLY PO, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE,KUNNATHOOR TALUK,KOLLAM, KERALA,PIN 690 519. BY ADV. SRI.SOORANAD S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA ,REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOLLAM,KOLLAM-1. 2. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (RURAL), CANARA BANK BUILDING, PUTHOOR ROAD,KOTTARAKKARA 690 542. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA, SASTHAMCOTTA PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN 690 521. 4. JAMEELA,AGED 47 YEARS,W/O.SUBAIR, SAJEEV MANZIL,KADAPPA MURI MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK,KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 519. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32259 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- PHOTOCOPY OF the COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE JANASREE MEMBERS TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ON 05/05/10. EXT.P2:- PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT GIVEN FROM THE OFFICE OF WOMEN'S CELL OF KOLLAM DISTRICT POLICE FOR THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY JANASREE MEMBERS DT.05/05/10. EXT.P3:- PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER TO THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY DT.20/02/11. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.32259 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose The petitioner, a 65 year old man seeks police protection for his life against threats and attempted assaults and other contumacious acts on the part of the 4th respondent, a lady. According to the petitioner, previously there was a boundary dispute between him and the 4th respondent. But the above dispute has been settled finally in favour of the petitioner by the Civil Court. At the moment there is no subsisting civil dispute. Having lost the civil litigation the 4th respondent is very much antagonized and she is frequently threatening the petitioner and members of his family with danger to lives and limbs. 2. Having considered the averments in the Writ Petition W. P. C. No.32259 of 2011 -2- and the submissions addressed at the Bar by Sri.S.Sreekumar (Sooranad), learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran, the learned Government Pleader and having considered the materials placed on record, our view is that we need not take a decision on the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled in the Writ Petition. Ext.P3 is seen submitted by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is directed to take up Ext.P3 immediately and to conduct a detailed enquiry into the same. As part of the enquiry the 3rd respondent can either summon or meet the 4th respondent in the presence of a woman police constable. If the enquiry reveals that the petitioner's allegation that there is subsisting threat to the life of himself and other members of his family from the part of the 4th respondent is true, the 3rd respondent shall take such action as is necessary for W. P. C. No.32259 of 2011 -3- protecting the lives and limbs of the petitioner and other members of his family. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE