IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17444 of 2009(A) PETITIONER: P.V.RAJAMMA, VIDYA BHAVAN, PANDALAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENTS: 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM. 5. RADHAKRISHNAN M.N., SECRETARY, ALL KERALA CHITTY THALAYAL SANGAM, PROPRIETOR INTERNATIONAL BANKERS, RESIDING AT ANJALI NIVAS, PARIYARAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PIN-689 643. 6. PRABHAKUMARI, -DO- -DO- R5 & R6 BY ADVS. M/S. VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE & B.S. SURESHKUMAR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 17444/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SEND BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION ISSUED BY DR. VARGHESE P.PUNNOOSE DATED 8.3.2007. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.6.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) NO. 17444 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2009. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioner is the proprietor of “Shine Hotel” at Panthalam. Respondents 5 and 6 are husband and wife. It is alleged that because of the high-handed action on the part of respondents 5 and 6, petitioner is not able to live in peace. It is admitted that petitioner borrowed from the 5th respondent some amount; but according to the petitioner, the same was returned without default. Again, petitioner borrowed Rs. 5 lakhs which was also returned. According to the petitioner, thus there is money transaction between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. According to her, the 5th respondent has sent a notice alleging that amounts are due from her as per the chitty subscribed by her. Petitioner pretends ignorance of any such chitty being conducted by her. According to the petitioner, there is threat from Respondents 5 and 6 and they trespassed into her residential house and threated her with dire consequences, if she did not pay the amount. Telephonic threats were also made by them. Hence petitioner seeks police protection. WP(C) 17444/2009 2 2. Learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent filed a statement. Petitioner is stated to be the wife of one Swaminathan who is running a Bar Hotel in which Swaminathan and their son were partners. Swaminathan is absconding. All the members of the family including the petitioner, had financial transaction with others and several cases are pending against the husband and son of the petitioner, in which warrants are pending. Details regarding cases where warrant is pending against the husband and son are given in the statement. Summons is also issued by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class – VII, Thiruvananthapuram,in S.T. 489/2006 against the petitioner herein. 3. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit for himself and on behalf of the 6th respondent. The allegations and averments made in the writ petition are denied. It is stated that the petitioner and her husband are partners in a builder concern and the husband of the petitioner executed an agreement on behalf of the builder concern assuring that they will allot the 3rd floor portion of the building construction which they are going to effect upon the property having an extent of 17.122 cents in Sy. No.. 2239/D-1 and 2239/A-5 of Cowdiar Village, Thiruvananthapuram, and received rs. 20 lakhs from the 5th WP(C) 17444/2009 3 respondent. It is denied that Respondents 5 and 6 have taken any highhanded action against the petitioner. 4. The question is whether there is any threat to the life of the petitioner as alleged. Except the ipsi dixit of the petitioner, there is no other materials before us. Respondents 5 and 6 have denied having caused any threat to the life of the petitioner or trespassed in to her house. The Police officers, in their statement also stated that there is no such threat. In the circumstances, if there is any such threat to the petitioner, she is free to approach the Magistrate Court by filing a criminal complaint. In the absence of any materials placed on record, this Court we find that police protection cannot be granted to the petitioner. But this will not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking appropriate remedy under the criminal law. With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. KNC/-