IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9027 of 2011(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MANI P.N., S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 43 YEARS, PERINGOTT HOUSE, AZHIKKAL P.O., VYPIN 682 510. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NARAKKAL P.O.-682 505, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NARAKKAL P.O.-682 505, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. PRASAD, S/O.KUNHAPPAN, VELLARPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. PRASANTH, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MAROTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA P.O. 682 511, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. SUNITHA, D/O.KUNHAPPAN, PERINGOTT HOUSE, AZHIKKAL P.O., VYPIN-682 510, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.9027/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 5/8/2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. P2 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19/3/2011 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19/3/2011 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.9027 of 2011-C ***************************** Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner is the husband of the 5th respondent. The 3rd respondent is his brother in law (wife's brother) and the 4th respondent is the brother of the son in law of the petitioner. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford protection to the life of the petitioner from the apprehended violent conduct on the part of respondents 3 to 5. 2. According to the petitioner, respondents 3 to 5 are engaged in an attempt to compel and coerce the petitioner to assign his property worth crores to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is not willing to do the same. He apprehends violent conduct on the part of respondents 3 to 5 to compel him to assign his property to the 3rd respondent. Police are guilty of inaction and hence the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition. 3. Respondents 3 to 5 have entered appearance through W.P(C) No.9027 of 2011-C 2 a counsel. The learned counsel submits that the allegations are totally false. The petitioner is having an extra marital relationship. He is trying to induct that woman into the matrimonial home. This is resisted by the 5th respondent and her relatives. There is no semblance of a demand from respondents 3 to 5 to assign the property of the petitioner to the 3rd respondent. There is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. The grievances have been raised by respondents 3 and 5 against the alleged conduct of the petitioner attempting to throw the 5th respondent out of his house and induct that particular woman to live with him in the said house. Except this, there is no dispute between the parties, submits the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5. 4. The learned Government Pleader on instructions from respondents 1 and 2 confirms the version of respondents 3 to 5. In the perception of the police officials, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner from respondents 3 to 5. Respondents 3 to 5 are only objecting to the unworthy attempt of the petitioner to throw his wife out of his house and induct another woman into the house, submits the learned Government Pleader. In these circumstances, the learned Government W.P(C) No.9027 of 2011-C 3 Pleader as also the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 submit that there is no necessity to issue any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. If there is any threat against the life or person of the petitioner from respondents 3 to 5, the police shall take necessary action, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, we are not at all persuaded to agree that there is any necessity to issue directions under Article 226. Primarily it is the duty of the police to ensure that no crimes are committed and crimes committed are appropriately responded to. No directions of this Court are necessary. But there may be exceptional cases in which this Court may feel that the jurisdiction under Article 226 can, need or deserves to be invoked to issue specific directions. 6. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, we are persuaded to agree that any such directions are necessary in the matter. We may record that in coming to this conclusion, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that threat to the life or person of the petitioner if any there, respondents 3 to 5 shall be appropriately responded to, has been heavily relied on by us. W.P(C) No.9027 of 2011-C 4 7. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/