IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21248 of 2011(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. K.OMANA, AGED 62 YEARS,W/O.LATE SADANADAN,VINOD BHAVAN, DHANUVACHAPURAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695503 2. S.JOBI,AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.LATE SADANANDAN, NIKUNJAM, DHANUVACHAPURAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695503 BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE SMT.B.BINDU SMT.N.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DIRECTED GENERAL OF POLICE,POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACUAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,(RURAL),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 3. DYSP OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA - 695 121 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANTHAPURAM-695 502 5. DR.WILLIAM. Y, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, DEVI HOSPITAL, VELLARADA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695505 6. USHA, ROSE HOUSE, DHANUVACHAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-595503 7. STELLA BABU, OF-DO-DO- 8. ARUN KUMAR, OF-DO-DO- 9. GIRSIH RAM @ GAMALI, OF-DO-DO- R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R6 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.V.P.REGHURAJ SRI.C.D.ANIL (CHERUVIL) SRI.V.SHYAM SRI.M.SAJEEV THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)NO.21248/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.500/2011 OF THE DHANUVACHAPURAM SRO. P2 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22/5/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE SI OF POLICE PARASSALA. P4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29/7/2011 P5 COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT OF THE REGISTERED POST. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R6(A) COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 6/08/2011 IN O.S.NO.707/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21248 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. The petitioners a widowed mother and her son have approached this Court accusing the 4th respondent Sub Inspector of police, of harassing them at the instance of party respondents 5 to 9. They also seek police protection from the threats and apprehended assaults from the party respondents. The very first prayer in the writ petition is that the 4th respondent Sub Inspector be directed not to compel or harass the petitioner for executing a sale deed in respect of 4 cents of land in favour of respondents 6 to 9. As directed by us, learned Government Pleader took instructions from the officers of the police. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the accusation that, the 4th respondent is compelling the petitioners to execute sale deed in favour of the party respondents is unfounded. 2 W.P.(C) No.21248 of 2011 It was the petitioner who filed a complaint before the 4th respondent. As a part of conducting enquiry, the petitioners and the party respondents were summoned to the police station. The enquiry revealed that the property belongs to the petitioners only and that the party respondents have no right over the properties. The 4th respondent advised the party respondents to have recourse of the dispute through process of civil court, if they have any claims. There is no compulsion at all from the part of 4th respondent on the petitioner to execute any document. We record all the submissions of the learned Government Pleader and in view of the stand taken by the police, we decline the first relief prayed for. 2. The second prayer in the writ petition is that the police officials may be directed to provide adequate protection to the life and peaceful living of the petitioner and members of her family against criminal acts which are being committed and the threats which are being made by the party respondents. The party respondents have filed a 3 W.P.(C) No.21248 of 2011 counter affidavit wherein they have denied the allegations raised in the writ petition against them. Learned counsel for the party respondents submitted that there is a subsisting civil dispute between the petitioners and the party respondents, for which a civil suit has already been instituted. There is no threat from the part of the party respondents to the petitioners or any other member of their family. In reply, Smt.Deepa N. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was filed only after the party respondents got notice of the present writ petition. It is also submitted that the suit filed is not a bonafide one also. She submitted that unless specific directions are issued, the 1st petitioner who is leading a lonely life in her house will find it difficult to have a peaceful life. Having considered the rival submissions we feel that the writ petition can be disposed of issuing the following directions :- In case the 4th respondent receives any complaint in future alleging threats or criminal 4 W.P.(C) No.21248 of 2011 acts from the part of the party respondents, the 4th respondent shall conduct an immediate enquiry and if the enquiry reveals that there is truth in the allegation in the complaint, the 4th respondent will take such action as is warranted for preventing any untoward incident and for protecting the life and limbs of the petitioners and for enabling the petitioner to have a peaceful life in their house. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/