IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19048 of 2008(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ LUKOSE JACOB @ THANKACHAN, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI P.O., SOUTH MOOLAMKUZHY, COCHIN -7. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL SRI.ANILKUMAR K.N. PILLAI RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLURUTHY,ERNAKULAM. 3. THE S.I. OF POLICE, THOPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM. 4. MABLE ANDREWS PINHIRO, CHEENICKAPARAMBU (KOLLAMPARAMBU), AROOJA LANE, NORTH MOOLAMKUZHY,KOCHI. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. ADV. SRI.JUBYRAJ.A.P - R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).19048/2008-P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF AGREEMENT NOTE EXECUTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT AND HER SONS AND DAUGHTERS DATED 10/05/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT, SONS AND DAUGHTERS AND INTENDING PURCHASER DATED 02/04/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.14019/08 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 09/05/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO 4TH RESPONDENT AND HER SONS AND DAUGHTERS DATED 24/05/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18/06/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // Rs/ K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19048 OF 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner submits that he advanced a loan of Rs.1,70,000/- to the 4th respondent. While availing the loan, she along with others handed over the original title deeds of the property owned by her as security for the loan amount, as evident from Ext.P1. Later, the 4th respondent found a purchaser for that property and an agreement has been executed by her and other owners of the property as per Ext.P2. When an advance of Rs.2,00,000/- was received from the proposed purchaser by the 4th respondent, she gave only Rs.60,000/- to the petitioner. For realising the balance amount of Rs.1,10,000/- with interest, he has filed O.S.No.155/2008 before the Sub Court, Kochi. While so, the 4th respondent started filing false complaints before the police and police started harassing him. So, he approached this Court, by filing W.P.(C) No.14019/2008, complaining about police harassment, and the said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment. After the filing of the suit, the 4th respondent started W.P.(C) No.19048/2008 2 threatening and harassing the petitioner and his family members. Her hired muscle men are coming and threatening to kill him and his family members. Therefore, he filed Ext.P5 petition before the Commissioner of Police, Cochin and thereafter this writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the life of petitioner and his family. 2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the representation filed before the Commissioner has not so far been forwarded to the Sub Inspector of Police, the 3rd respondent herein. 3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations against her. According to her, Ext.P1 is a forged document. She has already filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kochi, concerning the forgery committed in creating Ext.P1 agreement. The said complaint has been forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the police and a crime has been registered against the petitioner. To W.P.(C) No.19048/2008 3 get over the investigation in that case, this writ petition is filed. She further submits that she is a widow aged 54 years. She works as a housemaid to eke out a living. She has no capacity to threaten the petitioner or harm him. She has no intention, whatsoever, to do that. She points out that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner without clean hands and therefore the same may be dismissed. We record the submission of the 4th respondent that she has no intention, whatsoever, to physically harm the petitioner. In view of the said submission, no further orders are required in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is closed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps