IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21930 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :- ------------------------ V.C.SREEKUMAR, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI SARASWATHI NIVAS, MANNANCHERRY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.INNOCENT FRANCIS PAPALI RESPONDENT(S) :- -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 538. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARARIKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 549. 4. MANOHARAN, S/O.NARAYANA KURUP, PANNISSERIL, MANNANCHERRY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 538. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt WP(C).No.21930 OF 2011 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of the FIR No.239/2009 dtd.27/4/2009 issued by Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Alappuzha North Police Station. Ext.P2 :- Copy of the Wound Certificate dtd.26/4/2009 issued by the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha. Ext.P3 :- Copy of the complaint dtd.31/7/2011 filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P4 :- Copy of the representation dtd.1/8/2011 submitted by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.21930 of 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of August 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Even though the 4th respondent was served by special messenger, he has not entered appearance before this Court. 2. In this writ petition, the only prayer sought for is to issue a direction for giving police protection to the life as well as the property of the petitioner. The complaint of the petitioner was that Exts.P3 and P4 were submitted to the police for giving protection, but the police did not take any action thereon. The 3rd respondent, Circle Inspector of police is a relative of the 4th respondent. Smt.C.M.Charisma, the learned Government Pleader submitted that an enquiry was conducted pursuant to an W.P.(C). No.21930 of 2011 -: 2 :- interim order of this Court on 11.8.2011 and in the enquiry it is revealed that the allegation in Exts.P3 and P4 that the petitioner was assaulted by the 4th respondent is not correct. She highlighted that the petitioner was never admitted in any hospital nor has he sustained any bodily injuries. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the accusations against the Circle Inspector are baseless. According to her, at this moment there is no threat to the life of the petitioner from the 4th respondent or from anybody else. As regards the protection sought in respect of property she submitted that in the enquiry it is revealed that there was earlier boundary dispute between the petitioner's brother and the 4th respondent and that the same was settled and in that settlement, petitioner was directed to have recourse to the process of the civil court if he wants to take any action against the 4th respondent. Sri.Innocent Francis Papali, the learned counsel for the petitioner however would refute the submissions of the W.P.(C). No.21930 of 2011 -: 3 :- learned Government Pleader. He submitted that the 3rd respondent Circle Inspector is a relative of the 4th respondent and it is at the instance of 3rd respondent that the 2nd respondent has adopted an indifferent attitude towards the complaint submitted by the petitioner. 3. Having considered the submissions addressed at the bar, we are of the view that the protection sought in respect of property cannot be granted as in the enquiry conducted by the police, it is revealed that property dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent is pending. We relegate the petitioner to approach the civil court to have the above dispute settled. If there is no dispute as the petitioner asserts in respect of the property then also the petitioner can work out his remedies by approaching the civil court. 4. Now coming to the question whether protection directions are to be issued in respect of the life of the petitioner we feel having regard to the submissions of W.P.(C). No.21930 of 2011 -: 4 :- Sri.Innocent Francis Papali, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner can approach a competent Judicial Magistrate with a private complaint and request that the complaint be forwarded for immediate action under Sec.156(3) to a Sub Inspector of Police, not under the limits of 3rd respondent. With these observations, the writ petition is closed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt