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 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18767 of 2008(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PRAMOD.G. S/O.GOPINATHAN, 29 YEARS, SUPERVISOR-HPMC APPLLE JUICE NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, RESIDENT OF THEVATHIL HOUSE, THUMBAMAN PO., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH, ADV. SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THEVARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM 3. P.M.JOSE, NILAPPUTHUNDIL, MELOOD POST, PATHANAMTHITTA 4. THOMAS JOSE, VALATTOOR HOUSE, PARANTHAI PO.,PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITA 5. SUDHEER, S/O.PAREED CHERUVALLI LANE, CHALIKKAVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL, ADV. SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL), SRI.SIBY MATHEW, SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.18767/2008-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.2.A: COPY OF THE RECEIPT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO.18767 OF 2008 ============================ Dated this the 8th day of July 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that his life is in danger because of the threat from the part of respondents 3 to 5 and notwithstanding Ext.P2 representation filed by him before the police, they are not taking any effective action to give protection. The facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are the following: 2. The petitioner is an employee of Himachal Pradesh Marketing Corporation. The said Corporation is running stalls for selling apple juice at Ernakulam North, Ernakulam South and Alwaye Railway stations. Another stall is run in the K.S.R.T.C. bus stand. He is the supervisor in charge of those stalls. The third respondent is engaged in the business of renting out his Maruti Zen Estilo car. The 4th respondent was in need of a car on hire. So, the petitioner introduced the 4th respondent to the third respondent. Even without his introduction they knew each other. As per the understanding between the parties, the 4th respondent took the vehicle on rent for a WPC.18767/2008 -2- period of four months. Later, the 4th respondent pledged that vehicle with the 5th respondent and took Rs.50,000/-from the latter. The 5th respondent, in turn, pledged the vehicle to another person for an amount of Rs.one lakh. Now the petitioner found that at present the vehicle is in the custody of the 5th respondent. Now all the party respondents have joined together and are threatening the petitioner. The 5th respondent now falsely claims, the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.50,000/- to him, which was allegedly given by the said respondent to him. The 5th respondent has now engaged muscle men and along with them, the petitioner has been threatened twice by the said respondent. Though the police was informed, no action was taken. In the above background this writ petition is filed. 3. The third respondent submits, in fact the vehicle was taken by the petitioner and the 4th respondent . Now they are not paying the rent and the vehicle is not returned to him. Nobody appeared for the 4th correspondent. The 5th respondent submitted that the petitioner pledged the vehicle with him for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. To wriggle out of the liabilities of the petitioner, he is making false allegations against the respondents 3 to 5. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted WPC.18767/2008 -3- that this is a civil dispute in which the police can play no role. The allegation regarding the threat to the life of the petitioner is unfounded and no police protection is required, it is submitted. Respondents 3 and 5 submitted that they have no intention to physically harm the petitioner. They will proceed in accordance with law. In view of the above submission and also the submission of the learned Government Pleader, no further orders are required in this writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.