IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33391 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. SHINY K.S., SANAL BHAVANIL, PERUMKADA VIA ITTUKONATHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. BOSE PURUTHOTHANAM @ SHYNE, SANAL BHAVANIL PERUNKADA VILA, ITTUKONATHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARYANKODU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. KUMARAN, SHINE BHAVAN, KOLLAMKALA, CHERUTHANPODU, KEEZHAVOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SHYLAJA, SHINE BHAVAN, KOLLAMKALA, CHERUTHANPODU, KEEZHAOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SHINE, SHINE BHAVAN, KOLLAMKALA, CHERUTHANPOUD, KEEZHAVOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTAPURAM. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R3,4 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R3,4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.33391/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT.25.10.2008. EXT.R3(b): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENTDT.2.11.2008. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.33391 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are husband and wife. They have approached this Court alleging that they are being harassed by the 2nd respondent at the instance of the respondents 3 and 4. They also submit, they require police protection because of the alleged threat to their lives from the said respondents. 2. We notice that the respondents 3 and 4 are the parents of the 1st petitioner. The said respondents submitted that since the 1st petitioner was missing for some time, they were having apprehensions regarding her safety and so, they moved the police. 3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that since the 1st petitioner was missing, the police, naturally, made enquiries with her husband, the 2nd petitioner. He W.P.(C) No.33391/2008 2 further submitted that the police have no intention, whatsoever, to harass the petitioners. The respondents 3 and 4 also submitted that they have no intention to physically harm the 2nd petitioner. 3. We record the presence of petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 in the Court today. In view of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the official respondents and also the submission made by the respondents 3 and 4, we feel that no further orders are required in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is closed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps