IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11665 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. K.SADASIVAN, SANTHANA MANDIRAM, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM. 2. SEETHA LAKSHMI, W/O.G.MANOHARAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SMT.D.P.RENU SRI.S.SATHI KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. A.S.P.TRAINEE-IN CHARGE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE SECTION, KOLLAM. 2. PRINCIPAL SUB INSPECTOR, EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 3. SRI.MAHESAN, S.S.BHAVAN, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM. 4. SRI.SUGATHAN, S.S.BHAVAN, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOLLAM (ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.2.5.2008 IN IA 5531/08) Government Pleader MR.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 11665/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP 29843/01 DT.4.3.2002 OF THIS HON.COURT EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC 15818/04 DT.18.6.2004 OF THIS HON.COURT EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.22.6.2004 BY SI OF POLICE EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.15.3.2008 BY THE FIRST PETITIONER EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.28.3.2008 BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Writ Petition (C) No.11665 of 2008-L -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The first petitioner is a senior citizen. The second petitioner is his daughter. They have approached this court, alleging that respondents 3 and 4 are threatening them and so, their lives are in danger. Though police were alerted, they did not extend any helping hand. So, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following reliefs : “i. issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order or direction directing the 1st respondent to give sufficient police protection for the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners and daughter of the 2nd petitioner. ii. issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to register criminal case and arrest the respondents 3 and 4 since they are continuous illegal action and use of abusive language repeated (sic continuing illegal action and using abusive language repeatedly) against the petitioners.” WPC 11665/08 -2- 2. The learned Government Pleader upon instruction submitted that on the basis of the representation of the first petitioner, both sides were summoned to the police station. But, the first petitioner did not appear before the police. Based on the information lodged by the third respondent, Crime No.398/08 has been registered against the first petitioner under various offences including those under Section 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. The police denied the allegations raised against them. 3. Though notice was served on the party respondents, they did not appear. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. Going by the facts of the case and the representations filed by the first petitioner, it would appear that there is no threat to the lives of the petitioners as alleged by the first petitioner. In those representations, the first petitioner does not have any such case. His grievance is against the abusive and filthy language used by respondents 3 and 4, who are his neighbours. Going by the submission of the police, it would appear that the first petitioner is also accused of using filthy and abusive language against respondents 3 and 4. So, we feel that this is not a fit case where we should direct the police to extend necessary protection to the WPC 11665/08 -3- petitioners. They may take recourse to the ordinary remedies available to them before the civil/criminal court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE 26.05.2008 M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE sta