IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31931 of 2011(N) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- VANI V., PALAKKULANGARA MADAM, DANAPPADY, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA - 690 550. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM - 690 550. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPAD POLICE STATION - 690 502. 4. S.I.OF POLICE, HARIPAD POLICE STATION - 690 550. 5. SREEKUMAR, CHOORAKKATTU PADEETTATHIL, THULAMPARAMBU NADUVATHU MURI, MANARSSALA P.O., HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690550. 6. A.RAJEEVAN, ASARIPPARAMBIL, VETTUVENI, HARIPPAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 690514. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P. MANGUZHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 31931/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.878/2011 OF HARIPAD POLICE STATION. P2: COPY OF THE PETITION SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 24/11/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.31931 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The State Attorney has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and we have heard him also. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 seeks protection for her life as well as for the lives of her family members and also for her property from threats and contumacious acts of the 6th respondent and 5th respondent who is described as an employee of the 6th respondent. According to the petitioner, the building, which is possessed by the 6th respondent as a tenant and is subject matter of a pending rent control petition is purchased by the petitioner. The 6th respondent with the support of the 5th respondent is threatening the petitioner and members of her family with danger to their lives and limbs. 3. In this writ petition protection is sought as already stated, not only for lives but also for properties. We may state at the very outset that we are not inclined to grant the protection WPC.No.31931/2011 2 sought for in respect of the property which is concededly subject matter of a pending rent control petition. As for the protection sought in respect of the lives of the petitioner and members of her family we find that, acting upon the earlier complaint filed by the petitioner, the police have registered Ext.P1 crime. Therefore, in our view it is too early to blame the police of lethargy towards the complaint submitted by the petitioner. 4. Having considered the averments in the writ petition and the various documents produced along with the same and the submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that even without issuing notice to respondents 5 and 6 relief to a limited extent can be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition in the following terms; 5). The 4th respondent or any other police officer, who is investigating into Ext.P1, will conduct investigation very sincerely and will file final report or refer report as the case may be at the earliest before the competent court. There will be a direction to the 4th respondent to summon the petitioner as well as respondents 5 and 6 to his office and to conduct further enquiry into the complaint of the petitioner. If the enquiry reveals that WPC.No.31931/2011 3 there is subsisting threat to the lives of the petitioner and members of her family from respondents 5 and 6, then the 4th respondent will take such action as is necessary for protecting the lives of the petitioner and members of her family. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents 5 and 6 are preventing the petitioner from entering into the petitioner's property situated outside the building which is subject matter of the rent control petition. If it is revealed that there is no subsisting civil dispute in respect of the property, the 4th respondent will take such action as is necessary for redressing the petitioner's grievance. But if the enquiry reveals that there is subsisting civil dispute over the property also, the 4th respondent will advise the parties to go for civil litigation. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk WPC.No.31931/2011 4