IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 33071 of 2007(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ROSALINE RICHARD, W/O.LATE RICHARD PEREIRA, JUPITER HOUSE, ST.ANDREWS, ST.XAVIERS COLLEGE P.O., MENAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKKOOTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 552. 2. MERY JOHNY, W/O.JOHNY PERIRA, LORITO HOUSE, THUMBAVILAKOM, CHITTATTUMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 588. 3. RAJESH, DOCUMENT WRITER, THUMBAVILAKOM, CHITTATTUMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 588. 4. DEVARAJAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN NADAR, D.S.SADANAM, T.C.8/165, CHERUCICKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 581. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 33071/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02.11.2007. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R4(a) – TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT O.S.341/2006 INSTITUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. EXT.R4(b) – TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT O.S.347/2006 INSTITUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 33071 OF 2007-K ----------------------------------------- Dated 15th January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner's daughters, who are abroad, own two plots of land having an extent of 88.75 cents and 84 cents respectively. The petitioner is the power of attorney holder of her daughters. She entered into an agreement with the 4th respondent for sale of the property. Later, disputes arose between them and the sale did not take place. So, the 4th respondent filed two suits against the petitioner and her daughters for specific performance. He also obtained an injunction against alienation of the property. While so, on 29.10.2007 the petitioner knew that the 4th respondent had made arrangements for opening a road on the southern side of her property. She interfered and prevented the opening of the road. Again attempts were made on 2.11.2007 to lay the road through the said property. Thereupon she filed Ext.P1 petition before the 1st respondent C.I of Police, seeking protection to her life and property. Thereafter this writ Wpc 33071/2007 2 petition is filed, seeking protection to the life of the petitioner and also the property of her daughters. She has an allegation against respondents 2 and 3 that at the instigation of the 4th respondent, they are trying to trespass into the property and damage the compound wall. 2. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that on the strength of the agreement for sale, the property was handed over to him and he has laid the road to divide the property into small plots, for sale. The property is now in his possession and therefore, the allegations made by the petitioner are unfounded, it is submitted. 3. The respondents 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit, stating that they have no connection whatsoever with the property and the petitioner. They have been unnecessarily impleaded in this writ petition. 4. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that no crime is registered, as no cognizable offence has been reported. It is also submitted that no road is laid through the property of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. 5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent has to be resolved through the forum of the civil court. The 4th respondent has already invoked that remedy. Having regard to the nature of the dispute involved in this case, the police cannot Wpc 33071/2007 3 be asked to grant protection to the property of the petitioner. The petitioner is staying far away from the disputed property. Therefore, normally there cannot be any threat to her life. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and counter allegations, we feel that this is not a fit case to order protection as claimed by the petitioner. She may invoke the ordinary remedies available to her under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and Civil Procedure Code, to redress her grievances. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observation. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. Nm/