IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 13811 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- 1. P.KOZHY ALEX ADAYARA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHANNAPETTA POST, KOLLAMM DISTRICT. 2. ELIYAMMA ALEX, W/O.P.KOZHY ALEX, OF -DO-DO- BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR,KOLLAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL.KOLLAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, YEROOR. 4. KOZHY JACOB,ADAYORA PUTHEN VEETIL, ANAKKULAM, CHANAPPETTA, PATHANAPURAM. 5. AMMINI AMMA, OF -DO-DO-. R1 TO 3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. P. RNI DIOTHEMA ADV. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU FOR R4 & 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.13811/2010 APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATD 18/3/2010 BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, YEROOR. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE O.S. NO. 252/099 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR DATED 29/7/2009. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY FO THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ORDER DATD PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF TH APPLICATION DATED 17/2/2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY FO THE MHAZAR DATED 15/2/2010 SUBMITTED BY TH COMMISISONER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY FO THE REPORT DATED 20/2/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE JDUGMENT DATED 13/11/2008 IN W.P.(C) NO.22156/2008. EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. DATED 19/9/2008 FILED AGAISNT THE PETITIONER. EXT.R4(C): TRUE COPY FO THE F.I.R. DATED 22/6/2009 FILED AGIANST THE 1ST PETITIONER & OTHERS. EXT.R4(D): TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 47/2010 FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER. True copy P.S. TO JUDGE ks. K.M.JOSEPH & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C) NO. 13811 OF 2010 ============================ Dated this the 5th day of October 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. The petitioners have approached this court seeking the following reliefs: “i)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to grant adequate personal police protection to the petitioners; ii)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to implement Ext.P3 injunction order; iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of Ext.P1 forthwith and further direct respondents to initiate action on Ext.P5 immediately. W.P.(C)NO.13811/2010 -2- 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioners are husband and wife. Respondent No. 4 is the brother of the first petitioner and the 5th respondent is his wife. The first petitioner has filed civil suit, O.S.No.252/2009, before the Munsiff's Court, Punalur. Ext.P2 is the copy of the plaint wherein the 4th respondent is the first defendant. Reference is placed on a partition deed. The first petitioner has obtained Ext.P3 injunction. The first petitioner has also filed Ext.P4 application alleging violation of the order of injunction. It is alleged that while the 5th counter petitioner attacked the 2nd petitioner when she was passing through the pathway and she was hospitalized for thee days. Ext.P6 is the mahzar prepared by the Advocate Commissioner and Ext.P7 is the report of the Advocate Commissioner. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent. In the said counter affidavit, all the allegations are denied by the 4th and 5th respondents. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 4th and 5th respondents as also the learned Government Pleader. W.P.(C)NO.13811/2010 -3- 5. A civil suit is pending. The civil court has passed interim injunction which is an exparte order. The first petitioner has also filed Ext.P4 application for taking action for disobedience of the interim order. The Advocate Commissioner has filed Ext.P7 report. We do not think that it is a fit case where the petitioners are entitled to an order of police protection in respect of the property rights of the petitioners. In fact the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 would point out that the petitioners have attacked respondents 4 and 5 and crimes have been registered. He would submit that respondents 4 and 5 have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. We record his submission and we relegate the petitioners to work out their remedies before the civil court. Further, we direct that if the petitioners have complained or complain of commission of any cognizable offence by the party respondents before the official respondents, the official respondents shall take action on the same in accordance with law. However, we observe that it is open to the petitioners to request the court below to take up Ext.P4 and pass orders expeditiously on the W.P.(C)NO.13811/2010 -4- same. When the matter comes up before the civil court, the civil court shall take a decision untrammelled by anything contained in this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE W.P.(C)NO.13811/2010 -5-