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 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18281 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- INDIRA BHAI, W/O.SREEKANDAN NAIR, DHANYA, KALLUTHAZHAM P.O., KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 3. SAJI THANKAPPAN, KODUVELIL HOUSE, VALLAMKULAM P.O., THIRUVALLA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. BALAKRISHNAN, PUTHEN VEEDU, VALLAMKULMA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. ANUJI @ MANI, KODUVELI HOUSE, VALLAMKULAM P.O., THIRUVALLA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP FOR R3 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.18281 OF 2010 I PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 03.06.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 18281 OF 2010 I --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th June, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fifth respondent is unserved. He would submit that the petitioner does not press any relief against the fifth respondent. We record the submission. 2. Respondents 3 and 4 filed a Counter Affidavit denying the allegations. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 would submit that actually the son-in-law of the petitioner has issued cheques and they were dishonoured. He would further submit that respondents 3 and 4 have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. In view of the apprehension of the petitioner, besides recording the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4, we direct that in case any instance of threat on the life of the petitioner by respondents 3 WPC.18281/2010 I 2 and 4 is brought to the notice of the second respondent, the second respondent will afford protection to the life of the petitioner as against any threat by respondents 3 and 4. We make it clear that we have not pronounced on the correctness of the allegations made against the petitioner by respondents 3 and 4. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk.