IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 28560 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MARIYAMMA BABY, VENGOTTATHEKKETHIL VEEDU, CHANNAPPATTA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R SRI.K.S.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, YEROOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 4. JOHNY, VENGOTTATHEKKETHIL VEEDU, CHANNAPPATTA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. SARAMMA JOHNY, VENGOTTATHEKKETHIL VEEDU, CHANNAPPATTA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. SOOSAMMA VINCENT, VENGOTTATHEKKETHIL VEEDU, CHANNAPPATTA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.CHERISMA R4 TO 6 BY ADVS. SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28560 of 2009(L) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX ----------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXT.P1. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.09.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS -------------------------------------- EXT.R5(1). COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.126/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. EXT.R5(2). COPY of the WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 26.08.2008 FILED BY DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2 IN O.S. NO.126/2008 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUALUR. EXT.R5(3). COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2009 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.4579/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R5 (4). COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS-I, PUNALUR. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.28560 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner, a 64 year old widow, has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 police officials to afford protection for her life and person against the threats on the part of respondents 4 to 6 who are relatives of her deceased husband. Fourth respondent is the brother. Fifth and sixth respondents are the wife and daughter of the fourth respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, her husband was killed by respondents 4 to 6. A crime was registered under Section 304 IPC. The petitioner had demanded that investigation be conducted under Section 302 IPC. There was a dispute between the two sides about the pathway and even before the murder of the husband of the petitioner, parties had gone to the civil court. That civil suit is pending even now, it is submitted. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was threatened by the fourth WPC No.28560/2009 2 respondent that she will also be done away with like her deceased husband. A complaint was filed before the Magistrate by the fourth respondent and the same was referred to the police. A crime was registered on such complaint lodged by the fourth respondent and the investigation was pending. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner allegedly perceives threat to her life from respondents 4 to 6. 3. This petition was filed on 9.10.2009. It was admitted on the same day. Interim direction for protection for life as prayed for was ordered on 9.10.2009. Respondents have entered appearance. After 14.10.2009, there has been no posting of the case. The matter has now come up for hearing as the same has been listed for disposal by the Registry along with old pending matters. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the threat is real even now and that it is only because of the interim order granted on 9.10.2010, that the petitioner is to live peacefully without any threat. 5. Respondents 4 to 6 have entered appearance. According to them, the allegations are totally false. The WPC No.28560/2009 3 brother of the fourth respondent, i.e. the husband of the petitioner had died not on account of any contumacious or culpable conduct on the part of respondents 4 to 6, but because of coronary heart disease. It is true that there is a dispute between the parties about a pathway. It is incorrect to say that the petitioner faces any threat to her life or person from respondents 4 to 6. The boot is on the other leg. It is really respondents 4 to 6 who apprehend danger from the petitioner and relatives. The undertaking of respondents 4 to 6 that they shall abide by the decision of the civil court and shall not in any way cause any threat to the life or person of the petitioner may be recorded and this proceedings may now be closed, it is submitted. 6. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the perception of the police officials, there is absolutely no threat to the life or person of the petitioner now. It is not necessary to extend the interim order given as early as on 9.10.2009. If there be any threat to the life of the petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 shall take necessary action to abate any such threat, submits the learned WPC No.28560/2009 4 Government Pleader. 7. We accept the submissions of the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. In the circumstances narrated above, we are of the opinion that no further directions under Article 226 of the Constitution are necessary now. We repeat that we accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 that there is no threat now and if there be any threat, petitioner can complain and necessary action shall be taken by respondents 1 to 3. 8. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/