IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20376 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SREENATH P.M, S/O.A.PREMNATH, AGED 276 YEARS, LEELA SADAN, KOTTALI PO, KANNUR - 16. 2. MANJUSREE MOHANDAS, D/O.A.K.MOHANDAS, AGED 20 YEARS, LEELA SADAN, KOTTALI PO, KANNUR-16. BY ADV. SRI.RENNY AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 2. A.K.MOHANDAS, KRISHNA TULASI,. KEERIYAD, CHIRAKKAL POST, KANNUR-11. 3. JAYASREE MOHANDAS, W/O.A.K.MOHANDAS, KRISHNA THULASI, KEERIYAD, CHIRAKKAL POST, KANNUR-11 4. JAYADEV KUMAR, KRISHNA THULASI, KEERIYAD, CHIRAKKAL POST, KANNUR-11. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 20376/2009. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE INVITATION CARD. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF HINDU MARRIAGE NO.JAY-HAN 186-2009-10 DATED 18.7.2009. P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 20376 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, This is a writ petition seeking conflicting prayers. While the petitioner would allege police harassment, he also seeks police protection. Petitioners are stated to be husband and wife. Respondents 2 to 4 are father, mother and uncle of the second petitioner. Probably thinking that a man missing case would have been filed, and there may be action on the part of the police, this petition is filed. But the Station House Officer attached to the police station is not made a party. The only police officer, who is in the party array, is the Deputy Superintendent of Police. 2. Government Pleader on instructions submits that no crime has been registered against the petitioners and there is absolutely no basis for any allegation of police harassment. The same is recorded. 3. In so far as the prayer for police protection is concerned, it is not shown as to how respondents 2 to 4 are causing any harassment to the petitioners warranting police protection. WPC. 20376/2009. 2 In the circumstances, we are not satisfied that any direction as such can be issued in this case. The writ petition is dismissed. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.