IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1176 of 2011(V) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SIVASANKARAPILLAI, S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR, KARAVALLIL SRUTHI, CHETTIKULANGARA, MAVELIKKARA. 2. RAMESHAN, PUNARJANI, PALLIPPATTU MURI, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 101. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA-690 515, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. RAMANI MOHAN, KALLENMEPURATHU, PURAMATTOM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 543. 4. SUSAN GEORGE, SOUBHAGYA VILLA, VALLAMKULAM EAST P.O., THIRUVALLA-689 541. 5. PRABHAKARAN NAIR, MALAMPURACKAL HOUSE, NEDUNGADAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 545. 6. ANIL M.S., MUKULAMPURATHU HOUSE, MANJOOR P.O., KURUPPUNTHARA, KOTTAYAM-686 603. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.1176/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PAGE OF THE IST PETITIONER DISPLAYED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE COMPANY. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINANT DTD. 29.12.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL: TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Civil) No.1176 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 Judgment BASANT, J. The petitioners have come to this court for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 and 2, police officials, to afford police protection to the petitioners against wanton, contumacious and violent acts which the petitioners anticipate from respondents 3 to 5. 2. According to the petitioners, they had invested an amount of Rs.7000/-(500 $) in Wealthline Pramotors Pvt. Ltd. That company does online marketing business. Petitioners were legs of that company. They had invested amounts. They had persuaded respondents 3 to 5 also to invest money. They were down line legs of the company. The website of the company has vanished leaving all the investors in the dark. The petitioners are in no way responsible for running of the said company. Respondents 3 to 5 are lower legs in the operations of the company. Petitioners are also, like respondents 3 to 5, investors who have suffered and lost their investments. According to the petitioners, respondents 3 to 5, aggrieved and frustrated by the failure of the company, are attempting to physically obstruct and WPC 1176/2011 2 resort to contumacious action against the petitioners. The petitioners pray that directions may be issued to the police officials to afford police protection to them. 3. Notice was ordered to the respondents. Service is complete. Only the third respondent has chosen to appear. The 6th respondent has also entered appearance. The other party respondents, though served, have not chosen to enter appearance. We take note of the submission of the third respondent that the third respondent has no intention whatsoever to take law into his hands and vex the petitioners. It is true that a private complaint was filed by the third respondent and the same has been referred to the police by the learned Magistrate. The aggrieved party respondents shall resort to legal action against the petitioners, but that should not be reckoned as in a contumacious conduct. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits that he is also one of the persons who is aggrieved and frustrated by the disappearance of the company. He will not indulge in any contumacious conduct against the petitioner, it is submitted. 4. Learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that in the perception of the police officials there is no WPC 1176/2011 3 threat to the life or person of the petitioners. Some of the party respondents appear to be aggrieved by the conduct of the petitioners who according to them were instrumental in fraudulently persuading them to make investments. But, there is no possibility in the perception of respondents 1 and 2 of any contumacious or violent action on the part of respondents 3 and 6 against the petitioners. If there remains any such apprehension, the petitioners shall be liberty to complaint respondents 1 and 2 who shall take appropriate and effective action on receipt of such complaint, submits the Government Pleader. 5. We have taken note of all the relevant circumstances. We are satisfied that no specific directions under Article 226 of the Constitution need be issued in the light of the submissions of respondents 3 and 6 and the undertaking of the respondents 1 and 2. 6.This writ petition is, in these circumstances, allowed in part to the above extent. R.BASANT, JUDGE. srd K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. WPC 1176/2011 4 WPC 1176/2011 5