IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 1581 of 2010(W) ------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SANTHAMMA, W/O.LATE RAJAPPAN NAIR, KIZHEKKEDATHU VEEDU, MUNDAKKAYAM EAST KARA, KOKKAYAR VILLAGE, MUNDAKKAYAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNDAKKAYAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUVANTHANAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. THOMAS, RESIDING AT PULICKAL VEEDU, VARIKKANI KARA, ERUMELI NORTH VILLAGE, ERUMELI, KANJIRAPPALLY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6. CHINNAMMA THOMAS, W/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT PULICKAL VEEDU, VARIKANI KARA,ERUMELI NORTH VILLAGE, ERUMELI, KANJIRAPPALLY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R5,6 SRI.AJEESH K.SASI FOR R5,6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.1581 OF 2010 W PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 20.9.2009 IN CRIME NO.170/09 OF PERUVANTHANAM POLICE STATION. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.11.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 1581 OF 2010 W --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st March, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner seeks a mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to afford adequate and effective protection to the life and property of the petitioner from any threat by respondents 5 and 6 and their henchmen. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Civil suits are pending between the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. Fracture was caused to the petitioner. Ext.P1 is the FIR. It is stated that proper investigation has not been made. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 would submit that respondents 5 and 6 are old persons and they are not attacking the petitioner, and that there is no intention to attack the petitioner. We record the submission and direct that in case there is any threat from WPC.NO.1581 OF 2010 W 2 respondents 5 and 6 to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 will afford adequate protection to the life of the petitioner against respondents 5 and 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge