IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25429 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.JACOB, S/O.MATHEW,AGED 44 YEARS,KOORAYIL PLAVILA HOUSE, PERUMANOOR P.O.,VALAKAM,PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTIL SMT.BIMALA BABY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLA-689101 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL POLICE STATION,ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691306 4. T.G.SAMUEL, S/O.T.D.GEORGE, THANNICKAL HOUSE,OTHARA EAST, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689542 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K. VIPINDAS ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA) FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).25429/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY R4 BEFORE THE CJM COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA IN S.T.2327/10 EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE R2 EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF ADVOCATE NOTICE ISSUED TO R4 DT.28.6.11 EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL POLICE STATION RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL OKB //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25429 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C. Kuriakose, J. This writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner who complains that on account of certain monetary disputes between him and 4th respondent the 4th respondent is taking law into his hands and is causing threat to his life. According to him, eventhough Exts.P3 and P4 were submitted to the police, the police have not taken any effective action. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent sought for three days time for filing counter affidavit. However, we are not inclined to grant time in view of the manner in which we are disposing of the writ petition. 2. Learned senior Government Pleader Sri. T.K. Vipindas, on the basis of instructions, submitted that Ext.P2 petition was never received by the police. But Ext.P4 was received by the police by post and pursuant to Ext.P4 and also pursuant to the direction issued by this court on 23.9.2011 an enquiry was conducted which reveals that no law and order situation exists as alleged and that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner from the part of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has already initiated proceedings in as many as 4 W.P.(C).25429/11 -2- complaints based on dishonour of cheques issued by the petitioner. We enquired of the learned counsel for 4th respondent as to whether the 4th respondent has any intention to endanger the life of the petitioner or to take law into his hands. The answer was in the negative. He hastened to add that the present writ petition was instituted with the objective of causing prejudice in the minds of courts who are considering Section 138 cases filed by the 4th respondent against the petitioner. 3. Having considered the submissions addressed at the bar and the pleadings of the petitioner we are of the view that it is too early to issue directions sought for. However, we direct the Station House officers concerned (respondents 2 and 3) to keep vigil and to ensure by taking appropriate action as is warranted by the facts revealed by the enquiries conducted so as to ensue that the dispute between the petitioner and 4th respondent do not give rise to any violence or law and order situation. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb