IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 305 of 2009(J) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- K.NASEEMA, W/O. MUSTHAFA, AGED 29 YEARS, CHELORA AMSOM, THANA, KANNUR THALUK,KANNUR DISTRIC BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. GOPI, S/O. NALINAKSHIAMMA, PILAPPALIKKUDDI HOUSE, ANNUR, PAYYANNUR VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN FOR R2 SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 305/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PARTIALLY DESTRUCTED HOUSE. EXT.P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.12.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) NO. 305 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2009. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The prayer made in this writ petition is for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to afford adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner in pursuance of Ext.P2. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that following the death of her father the property owned by him devolved upon his legal heirs including the petitioner and an extent of 57 cents of land including a residential building thereon was agreed to be kept apart for her. The second respondent, who is a very influential person in the locality approached the petitioner and instructed her to sell the property to which she was not agreeable. Subsequently on 29.12.2008 petitioner came to know that the said residential building was being demolished. Possibly, it is suspected that it was done at the instance of the second respondent. Ext.P2 is a complaint made by the petitioner before the first respondent - Sub Inspector WP(C) 305/2009 :2: of Police, Payyannur Police Station, dated 30.12.2008. She is aggrieved that no action is taken by the authorities on Ext.P2. 3. At the time of admission, this Court granted protection for the life of the petitioner. Learned government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State would submit that except to throw a complaint, petitioner did not appear before the police station. At the same time, no materials are placed before us to show that anybody was questioned in connection with Ext. P2 complaint. In the circumstances, we direct that if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the inaction, if any, in enquiring the case, remedy is to approach the Magistrate's Court, whereupon the Magistrate will consider the petition in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. Interim protection for life will continue until it is found that no threat exist. Writ petition is closed. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. KNC/-