IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10668 of 2011(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. P.K.ABDUL KHADER, S/O.LATE P.K.MOHAMMED, AGED 42 YEARS, P.K.APARTMENT, T.B.ROAD, THURAKKAL P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SHAKIRA, W/O.P.K.ABDUL KHADER,AGED 32 YEARS, P.K.APARTMENT, T.B.ROAD,THURAKKAL P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. MOHAMMED HAFEEZ JAWAD, S/O.P.K.ABDUL KHADER, AGED 12 YEARS,P.K.APARTMENT, T.B.ROAD, THURAKKAL P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND FATHER P.K.ABDUL KHADER S/O.LATE P.K.MOHAMMED,AGED 42, P.K.APARTMENT, T.B.ROAD,THURAKKAL P.O., KONDOTTY. 4. HADI MOHAMMED, S/O.P.K.ABDUL KADER, AGED 8 YEARS, P.K.APARTMENT,T.B.ROAD,THURAKKAL P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND FATHERP.K.ABDUL KHADER S/O.LATE P.K.MOHAMMED,AGED 42,P.K.APARTMENT, T.B.ROAD, THURAKKAL P.O., KONDOTTY,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM-676 505. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-676 505. tss W.P.(C) NO.10668/2011 3. UMMU BARQAT, W/O.LATE P.K.MOHAMMED, AGED 62 YEARS, POOLAKKAL, KARIMPANAKKAL HOUSE, AKKODE P.O., VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM P.O., PIN-673 640. 4. P.K.AHAMMED KABEER, S/O.LATE P.K.MOHAMMED, AGED 32 YEARS,POOLAKKAL KARIMPANAKKAL HOUSE,AKKODE P.O., VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM P.O.,PIN-673 640. NOW UNDER JUDICIAL CUSTORY AT SUB JAIL MANJERI. 5. P.K.ABPPBACLER. , S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, AGED 60 YEARS, KAREKKUZHI HOUSE,AKKODE P.O., VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM P.O.,PIN-673 640.NOW UNDER JUDICIAL CUSTORY AT SUB JAIL MANJERI. 6. SAJITHA FATHIMA, W/O.ABDUL RAZAQ, AGED 35 YEARS, POOLAKKAL KARIMPANAKKAL HOUSE,AKKODE P.O MALAPPURAM P.O.,PIN-673 640. 7. P.V.ABDUL RAZAQ, S/O.P.V.MOHAMMED, AGED 40 YEARS, JAMEELA MANZIL, THZHUVANOOR P.O., KAVUMPURAM, VALANCHEERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 8. P.K.ALIKKOYA, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, AGED 60, KAREKKUZHI HOUSE, AKKOD, P.O.VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 640. 9. P.V.MOHAMMED , S/O. KADER HAJI, AGED 67 YEARS, NARIKKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, AKKODE P.O., VAZHAKKAD PIN 673 640. 10. C.MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O.CHAKKEERI AHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 70 YEARS, CHANNAYIL HOUSE, CHERUR P.O., VENGARA, MALAPPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R3 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.10668/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.72/2011 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION. P2:- COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE IST AND 2ND RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.12733/2006 DTD. 22.5.2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 10668 OF 2011 G ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th April, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioners are husband, wife and two minor children. They have come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 to respondents 1 and 2 police officials to afford protection to them against culpable and violent conduct apprehended from respondents 3 to 10. 2. According to the petitioners there are disputes between the petitioners on the one hand and respondents 3 and 4 on the other. Third respondent is the mother of the first petitioner. Fourth respondent is the brother of the petitioner. Sixth respondent is the sister of the first petitioner. The other party respondents are related to the petitioners. 3. There is a civil dispute between the parties. The first petitioner and his brother one Ayoob had initiated partition proceedings together against the others. The said Ayoob has been murdered on account of the animosity arising from the civil dispute. Respondents 4 and 5 are accused in the said murder WPC 10668/2011 2 case. According to the petitioners the third respondent is also involved in the murderous attack. Investigation is in progress. Petitioners apprehend that respondents 3 to 10 may indulge in violent conduct against the petitioners. The fate of Ayoob, the brother of the petitioners instills in the petitioners mortal fear. It is in these circumstances prayed that directions under Art. 226 may be issued. 4. The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instruction submits that parties are having civil disputes. They will have to get their civil dispute resolved in accordance with law. The police do not intend to interfere in the civil dispute between parties. However, in the light of the death/murder of the first petitioner's brother the police do see merit in the perception of threat to the life and person of the petitioners. If there be any such threat to the life and person of the petitioners, petitioners can complain to the second respondent and thereupon necessary action shall be taken by the police submits the learned Govt. Pleader. Appropriate directions may in these circumstances be issued submits the learned Govt. Pleader. 5. Respondents 3 and 7 have entered appearance through counsel. According to the learned counsel there are civil disputes between the parties. There is no threat to the life or WPC 10668/2011 3 person of the petitioners. There is no need to pass any orders against respondents 3 to 10. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We take note of the stand taken by the learned Govt. Pleader. Considering the background and sequence of events in this case we are persuaded to agree that appropriate directions can be issued for the protection to life and person of the petitioners. Appropriate safeguards can of course be insisted to ensure that police do not interfere in the civil disputes between the parties. 7. In the result; a) This petition is allowed. b) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioners against any threat to their life or person emanating from respondents 3 to 10. c) We make it clear that this will not justify interference by the police in the civil dispute between the parties. Parties shall have to seek and abide by the decisions of the civil court in respect of their civil dispute/litigation. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 10668/2011 4 WPC 10668/2011 5