IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 16TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 13393 of 2011(Y) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, MARUKARA HOUSE, NALKALICKAL POST, KIDANGANOOR, AARENMULA, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA.-689645 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA.-689645 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AARENMULA POLICE STATION, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 4. USHA, AGED 46 YEARS, MARUKARA HOUSE, NALKALICKAL POST, KIDANGANOOR, AARENMULA, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.-689533 5. VIJAYAMMA, AGED 75 YEARS, MARUKARA HOUSE, NALKALICKAL POST, KIDANGANOOR, AARENMULA, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.-689533 WP(C).No. 13393 of 2011(Y) -2- 6. GOPALAKRISHNAN, MARUKARA HOUSE, NALKALICKAL POST, KIDANGANOOR, AARENMULA, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.-689533 ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ FOR R4 TO 6 SRI.SAJJU.S FOR R4 TO 6 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13393 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS:- EXT.P1:- PHOTOCOPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 25/03/09 NO.A2- 1/08 OF ARANMULA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P2:- PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28/04/09 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-1, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P3:- PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 05/05/11 FILED BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PATHANAMTHITTA BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4:- PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15/12/09 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.439/98 OF THE SRO AARANMULA DATED 21/04/98 EXT.P6:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.466 OF 1995 OF THE SRO AARENMULA DATED 30/03/95. EXT.P7:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 01/06/11 FOR PAYMENT OF BASIC TAX IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY COVERED UNDER EXT.P5. EXT.P8:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACCIDENT REGISTER CUM WOULD CERTIFICATE DATED 08/12/2009. EXT.P9:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.783/09 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC.323, 324 AND 34 IPC. EXT.P10:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED ON 04/01/10. EXT.P11:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO the PROVISIONAL STORE FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSEHOLD ARTICLES BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DURING 12.12.2008 TO 23.01.2010. EXT.P12:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OF HIS SON. EXT.P13:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPTS FOR PAYING THE TUTION FEE FOR MY DAUGHTER. EXT.P14:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT TO THE ARANMULA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BEING PRICE OF PROVISIONAL ITEMS ETC. EXT.P15:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PREMIUM REMITTANCE TO THE LIC IN THE NAME OF MY SON DATED 27.10.09. WP(C).No. 13393 of 2011(Y) RESPONDENTS EXTS EXT.R4A:- TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE POYANIL HOSPITAL, KOZHENCHERRY. EXT.R4B:-TRUE COPY OF ACCIDENT REGISTER-CUM-WOUND CERTIFICATE OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE POYANIL HOSPITAL, KOZHENCHERRY. EXT.R4C:-TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT IN O.P. (HMA) NO.261/09 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALL. EXT.R4D:-TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT IN OP (HMA) NO.260/09 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. EXT.R4E:-TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT HOSPITAL, HOZHENCHERRY. EXT.R4F:-TRUE COPY OF ACCIDENT REGISTER-CUM-WOULD CERTIFICATE OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOZHENCHERRY. EXT.R4G:-TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOZHENCHERRY. EXT.R4H:-TRUE COPY OF ACCIDENT REGISTER-CUM-WOULD CERTIFICATE OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOZHENCHERRY. EXT.R4I:-TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.607/10 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION. EXT.R4AJ:-TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN M.C. NO.8/11 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA FILED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.13393 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner who is the husband of the 4th respondent and son-in-law of the 5th respondent has approached this Court seeking police protection in the following terms:- “Issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and sufficient police protection to the life and property of the petitioner from the respondents 4 to 6 and their henchmen.” 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.4 to 6 to which a detailed reply is filed by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit party respondents deny every averment in the Writ Petition and contend that the properties in question are presently under the absolute possession of the party respondents 4 and 5. It is also contended that at least in respect of a portion of those W. P. C. No.13393 of 2011 -2- properties, the party respondents are having title. In the reply affidavit the petitioner reiterates the averments in the Writ Petition and denies the contention raised by the parties. 3. Very persuasive submissions were addressed by Sri.K.Madhusoodhanan Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Shaj, the learned counsel for the party respondents. The learned Government Pleader also made submissions on the basis of the instructions imparted on her by the police authorities. It was submitted by the learned Government Pleader that two crimes have been registered - i.e 1) Crime No.783/09 has been registered against respondents 4 and 5 and 2) Crime No.607/10 has been registered against the petitioner. In both these cases final reports have been submitted and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of these two cases which are now pending trial. 4. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar including the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader and having gone through the pleadings W. P. C. No.13393 of 2011 -3- as well as the various materials placed on record, we are of the view that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner i.e for rendition of adequate and sufficient police protection to his life and his properties cannot be granted. The properties have a total extent of 28 cents covered by Exts.P5 and P6 documents and also another document having registration No.466/95. Obviously, the possession of these properties in the sense of physical control is presently with respondents 4 and 5. We do not think that we will be justified in granting any direction for police protection of the properties in favour of the petitioner of which the petitioner does not have present possession. 5. Coming to the protection sought for in respect of the life of the petitioner, we notice that on the complaint submitted by the petitioner the police registered a crime which was investigated and final report has been submitted. We further notice that acting on a complaint submitted by the party respondents crime was registered, investigation is completed and final report has also been submitted. We W. P. C. No.13393 of 2011 -4- direct that if the petitioner reports any incident of threat violence or contumacious act from the part of the party respondents to the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent will conduct proper enquiry and will take appropriate action as is warranted by the facts revealed in the enquiry. Same way if the party respondents complain that there is any threat to their lives on account of any contumacious act, thereat or violence perpetrated by the petitioner the 3rd respondent will conduct necessary enquiry and take appropriate action as is warranted by the facts revealed in the enquiry. 6. We notice the very appealing submission which was addressed before us by Sri.K.Madhusoodhanan Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner towards the end of his submissions. The submission was that the petitioner should be permitted to visit the properties covered by Exts.P5 and P6 and Document No.466/95 at least once in a month in the company of the 3rd respondent or any other police official deputed by the 3rd respondent. Even though, the above request was very stiffly opposed by Sri.K.Shaj, the learned W. P. C. No.13393 of 2011 -5- counsel for the party respondents, we are of the view that in view of the almost admitted position that the petitioner is the title holder of a substantial portion of the property the request can be granted. 7. Hence, even as we decline the reliefs sought for, we issue a direction to the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to visit the properties covered by Exts.P5 and P6 documents and also by document No.466/95 of Aranmula Sub Registry at least once in a month in the company of either the 3rd respondent himself or any other police official deputed by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner shall intimate the 3rd respondent of his proposed visit sufficiently early so as to enable the 3rd respondent to give intimation to respondent No.4 regarding the proposed visit. The visit shall be confined to once in a month and will be limited to a maximum period of three hours. We make it clear that the visitorial right granted under this judgment will not confer any special rights to the petitioner over the property in question and also that this will be without prejudice to the W. P. C. No.13393 of 2011 -6- rival contentions raised and to be raised in the litigations presently pending and to be instituted later in various courts including the Magistrate's Court which is in seizin of proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. The 3rd respondent will be duty bound to ensure that no untoward incident happens during the visit permitted under this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-