IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12943 of 2011(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RESHMI MAHESH, W/O.MAHESH, M.M.MAHAL, KUNNAM.P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 108. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 101. 3. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, MAVELIKKARA. 690 101. 4. GOPALAKURUP, SARASWATHI VILASOM, KUNNAM.P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 108. * 5. SARASWATHY, SARASWATHI VILASOM, KUNNAM.P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 108. ( CORRECTED) * SARASAMMA, SARASWATHI VILASOM, KUNNAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA , ALAPPUZHA 690 108. *CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DTD. 6.6.11 IN IA. 8128/2011. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R4 BY ADVS. SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV, SRI.VINOD J.DEV. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.12943/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20.3.2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE WOMEN'S COMMISSION. P2:- COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION, DATED 3.7.2008 FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 16.4.2010 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 8.4.2011. P5:- COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE STATE WOMEN'S COMMISSION DATED 20.4.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R4(a):- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. 7/2010 PENDING BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MAVELIKKARA. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.12943 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner, a woman, has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection against the misdeeds of respondents 4 and 5, a couple residing in the neighbourhood. According to the petitioner, there are civil disputes about the existence of the pathway. The suit filed has been dismissed. Another suit now filed by the fourth respondent is pending before the civil court. No interim orders have been issued. The petitioner does not want to seek any directions for police protection regarding the property. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the decisions, interim or final, of the civil court in respect of that dispute. 2. What then is the grievance of the petitioner ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal, culpable and WPC No.12943 of 2011 2 contumacious conduct of respondents 4 and 5 who indulge in objectionable acts of threat against the life and person of the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that directions of police protection are claimed, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent (he has not entered appearance of the fifth respondent - wife of the fourth respondent) submits that respondents 4 and 5 have no intention whatsoever to cause any threat against the life or person of the petitioner. The petitioner is attempting to steal a march over respondents 4 and 5 in the civil suit which is pending. The attempt is to obtain such an order of police protection and later on vex and harass respondents 4 and 5 with the help of such an order of police protection. It is categorically undertaken that respondent No.4 or respondent No.5 shall not in any way indulge in any act of threat or harm against the life and person of the petitioner. In these circumstances, no directions under Article 226 of the Constitution deserve to be issued, submits the learned counsel for respondent No.4. WPC No.12943 of 2011 3 4. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that there are disputes between the parties and the dispute precisely is about the width of the pathway. That dispute will have to be resolved by the parties by approaching the civil court. They will have to abide by the directions of the civil court. However, in the perception of the police officials, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner from respondents 4 and 5. If there be any such threat, the petitioner shall be at liberty to complain to respondents 1 to 3 and if the complaints are genuine, respondents 1 to 3 shall adequately respond to such complaints and afford protection for the life and person of the petitioner. At the moment, there is no need to issue any such directions. These submissions may be accepted and proceedings in this petition may now be closed, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. At the moment, we do not perceive any threat to the life or person of the petitioner. The parties must abide by the directions of the civil court regarding the civil dispute WPC No.12943 of 2011 4 between them. Police should not interfere with such civil dispute. But, however, if there is threat against the life or person of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be at liberty to complain and the police must take appropriate action on such complaints, if genuine. 6. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. sd/- R.BASANT JUDGE sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE