IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5030 of 2011(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- B.INDIRA, D/O.BHAVANI, INDEEVARAM, VANDANNOOR,PERUMBAZHATHOOR-695126. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KATTAKKADA.PIN-695 572 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MARANALLOOR. PIN- 695 572 4. SIVADASAN,S/O.RAMACHANDRAN,SUBRAMANIA VILASAM,VANDANNOOR, PERUMBAZHATHOOR-695126, (POLICE CONSTABLE FOR MUSEUM POLICE STATION ON DEPUTATION AS WATCH AND WARD IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY HALL). 5. JANARDHANAN,S/O.SUBRAMANIA PANICKER, KADAYARA VEEDU, POTTAYIL,MALAYANKEEZHU.695 126. 6. GOPALAKRISHNAN,S/O.SUBRAMANIA PANICKER, (RESIDING WITH SIVADASAN),SUBRAMANIA VILASAM, VANDANNOOR,PERUMBAZHATHOOR-695 216. 7. JAYABHADRAN,S/O.KUTTAPPAN,PARIJATHAM, VANDANNOOR.P.O,PERUMBAZHATHOOR-695 126. 8. SMT.JANAKI SARASWATHI,SUBRAMANIA VILASAM VANDANNOOR,PERUMBAZHATHOOR-695 126. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.5030/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/12/2001 IN O.P.NO.33124 OF 2001. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2008 IN I.A.NO.7148/2008 IN O.S.NO.1060/2008. P3 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 12/12/2008 P4 COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT DATED 18/12/2010. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/01/2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER. P6 COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT. P7 COPY OF THE F.I.R. NO.48/11 DATED 25/01/2011. P8 COPY OF THE FIR DATED 26/01/2011 FILED IN THE PETITION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P9 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02/02/2011 WAS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** I.A.No.4814 of 2011 in W.P(C) No.5030 of 2011-C ***************************** Dated this the 17th day of March, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The learned counsel prays and accordingly the 6th respondent is deleted from the array of parties at the risk of the petitioner. W.P(c) No.5030 of 2011 The petitioner, a woman, has come to this Court raising a grievance that she is being vexed and harassed by the contumacious, culpable and violent acts of respondents 4 to 8. The 6th respondent has subsequently been deleted from the array of parties as he has allegedly shifted his residence from the locality. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 is a police constable. He wields a lot of influence and power. The petitioner has initiated civil proceedings against the 4th respondent and an order of injunction has been passed. Notwithstanding the passing of the order of injunction against the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent along with his cohorts respondents 5, 7 and 8 are indulging in contumacious and W.P(C) No.5030 of 2011-C 2 culpable acts against the petitioner. Directions for police protection may be issued, it is prayed. 2. Respondents 4, 5, 7 and 8 have been served. There is no appearance for respondents 4, 5, 7 and 8. We must assume that those respondents are not interested in opposing the prayer made by the petitioner. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for instructions. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is a civil dispute between the parties. It is true that allegations of personal violence against the petitioner were raised and one crime has already been registered. The learned Government Pleader submits that the police shall take necessary action to afford protection to the person and life of the petitioner. Since the parties are before the civil court and orders have already been obtained from the civil court, the parties may be left to seek appropriate relief in respect of the property from the civil court. 3. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We agree with the learned Government Pleader. We are satisfied that direction for protection of the life and person of the petitioner can be granted as prayed for. W.P(C) No.5030 of 2011-C 3 4. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed in part; b) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to afford adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioner against any threat to her person and life from respondents 4, 5, 7 and 8. We make it clear that the police shall not interfere in the civil dispute between parties. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/