IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15308 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JEEVA @ JEEVADAS, S/O.LATE SUBAYYA, AGED 30 YEARS, KARUPPAN COLONY, SURIYANELLI POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA. NOW RESIDING AT 298, AMMANKULAM, TAPPANAYAKKAN PALAYAM, COIAMBATTOOR- 641 037. BY ADV. SRI.J.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI. 685 618. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHANTHAMPARA POLICE STATION. 678 001. SHANTHAMPARA. 3. VIJAYASHEKHAR.M., S/O.MUNUSWAMY, KARUPPAN COLONY, NEAR TEMPLE, SORRYANELLY.P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA.685618. R1 TO R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15308 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 07.11.09. P2 : COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE J.F.C.M. (NEDUMKANDAM) DATED 30.11.2009. P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 14.12.09. P4 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 29.04.11. P5 : COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 29.04.11. P6 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 14.05.11. P7 : COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTDATED 14.05.11. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE smvd R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.15308 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to the petitioner against the threat to his life and person posed by the third respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of an item of property. The details of the document of purchase are not revealed. The petitioner wanted to undertake the construction of a residential building in that property and at that juncture, the third respondent is causing obstruction. He is threatening the petitioner making it impossible for the petitioner to even visit his property. He is unable to come to his native place because of the threats of the third respondent. A complaint had been filed before the Magistrate. The same was referred to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. A crime has been registered. After investigation, the police have referred the complaint. The WPC No.15308/2011 2 third respondent is in these circumstances encouraged to illegally obstruct the petitioner. The petitioner is unable to return to the locality. The petitioner apprehends physical violence and threat to his life and person if he were to return to his native place. According to the petitioner, this makes it impossible for him to initiate legal proceedings against the third respondent or complain about the action of the police referring his complaint against the third respondent. It is in these circumstances that the protection is claimed. 3. The third respondent is served. But there is no representation for the third respondent. 4. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that the petitioner appears to have entered into an agreement with the brother of the third respondent for purchase of an item of property. That property does not belong exclusively to the brother of the third respondent. No document conveying title has been executed also. The petitioner, though he claims to be the owner of the property, has not been able to place before the police or this Court any document to show his title to the property. According to the learned Government Pleader, WPC No.15308/2011 3 the third respondent's brother has a grievance that further amounts are liable to be paid. 5. Be that as it may, we need only note that there is a dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and the third respondent and his brother on the other about the rights over the property in which the petitioner proposes to construct a residential building. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes it clear that the petitioner is not seeking any relief in respect of the property. The grievance of the petitioner is that the document entered into between him and the proposed seller has been thieved from his possession when he was away attending on his sick father. To take necessary further steps, the petitioner has to come to his native place in Idukki District. Because of the threats of the third respondent, the petitioner is unable to come. Protection may be afforded to enable the petitioner to visit his native place in Suryanelli, Idukki District without any threat to his life and person from the third respondent. That alone is the prayer now. 7. The learned Government Pleader submits that the police shall afford protection to the petitioner if there be WPC No.15308/2011 4 any threat against him to come to his native place and prosecute his remedies under law. Necessary protection shall be given, but the police shall not intervene in the civil dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and the third respondent and his brother on the other about the proposed sale of property. That dispute will have to be resolved in accordance with law by the parties by approaching the civil court, submits the learned Government Pleader. 8. We have considered all the relevant aspects. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity to come to Suryanelli in Idukki, his native place and prosecute his remedies in accordance with law. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the police shall afford protection to the petitioner, if there be any illegal obstruction by the third respondent or others. If there be any such obstruction, the third respondent can complain and the police shall afford necessary protection, submits the learned Government Pleader. We accept that submission. 9. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. WPC No.15308/2011 5 Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford protection to the petitioner to visit Suryanelli and take steps in accordance with law to redress his grievances. By way of abundant caution we reiterate that we have are not intended to express any opinion on merits about the dispute between the petitioner and his alleged seller who is said to be the brother of the third respondent. That dispute will have to be resolved in accordance with law by initiating civil proceedings. SD/- R.BASANT JUDGE SD/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE WPC No.15308/2011 6 R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.15308 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th June, 2011 ORDER WPC No.15308/2011 7 Basant, J. Heard. Admitted. Notice given and the learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2. Issue notice to respondent No.3 by speed post. Verify service and call again on 21.6.2011. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/