IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31170 of 2011(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T. PAPPACHAN, THEKKEPLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THUMBASSERY, KARAVALOOR P.O., PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR SUB DIVISION, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 305. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR POLICE STATION, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 305. 3. SABU T.JOSEPH, THUMBASSERY HOUSE, VENJEMBU P.O., PUNALUR, PIN-691 333. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 31170 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.R.P.NO.1468 OF 2007. EXT.P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF MONEY. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5.11.2011 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 12.11.2011 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 31170 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner seeks, in this writ petition under Article 226, protection for the lives of himself and his wife from the alleged contumacious acts of the 3rd respondent with whom he had some money transactions. According to the petitioner, the money transactions, which the petitioner had with the 3rd respondent, are completely over and claiming further amounts the 3rd respondent is troubling the petitioner every now and then. The petitioner alleges that there is subsisting threat to the lives of the petitioner and his wife and they are finding it extremely difficult to live peacefully. 2. As directed by us, Sri.Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran learned Government Pleader has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. We have heard him also. 3. Having considered the averments in the writ petition and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well WPC.No.31170/2011 2 as the various materials placed on record by the petitioner, we are of the view that it is not necessary that we examine the truth or otherwise of the allegations of the petitioner. Ext.P3 complaint is seen submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. We direct the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P3 immediately and to conduct an enquiry into the same. As part of the enquiry, the 2nd respondent can either summon or meet the 3rd respondent. If the enquiry reveals that there is truth in what the petitioner has stated, that there subsisted threats from the 3rd respondent to the petitioner and his wife, it shall be the obligation of the 2nd respondent to take such action as is necessary for protecting the lives and limbs of the petitioner and his wife. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk WPC.No.31170/2011 3