IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 35477 of 2007(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. YOHANNAN, S/O.LATE CHACKO ABRAHAM, AGED 52 YEARS, PALLIKKUNNEL HOUSE, VAZHAPARAMBU, KANDANADU SOUTH, KANDANADU P.O., THRIPUNITHURA. 2. MOLLY YOHANNAN, W/O.YOHANNAN, AGED 42 YEARS, PALLIKKUNNEL HOUSE, VAZHAPARAMBU, KANDANADU SOUTH, KANDANADU P.O., THRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UDAYAMPEROOR POLICE STATION. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA. 4. CHACKO, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE ABRAHAM, MOLUMPURATHU HOUSE, KARIKOD, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST. 5. AVARACHAN, S/O.CHACKO, MOLUMPURATHU HOUSE, KARIKOD, MULANTHURUTHY PO, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SALIM P.A. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI SRI.JINU JOHN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.35477/2007 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM GENERAL HOSPITAL ERNAKULAM DTD. 24/08/2005. EXT.P2: WOUND CERTIFICATE EXT.P3: COPY OF THE FIR. EXT.P4: REQUEST FOR POLICE PROTECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UDAYAMPEROOR. EXT.P5: REQUEST FOR POLICE PROTECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE SUB INSPECTOR SOF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY. EXT.P6: RECEIPTS ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. 5TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(1): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.19500/07 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.R5(2): COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DTD. 20/03/2006 ISSUED TO 4TH RESPONDENT FROM GOVT.HOSPITAL, MULANTHURUTHY. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 35477 of 2007 (W) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. The petitioners are husband and wife. The first petitioner submits that he is a physically handicapped person suffering 50% disability. The fourth respondent is the first petitioner's brother and the fifth respondent is the son of the fourth respondent. There were some disputes in the family regarding partition of family properties even when the father of the first petitioner and the fourth respondent was alive. 2. The first petitioner submits that respondents 4 and 5 assaulted his father and the same lead to the registration of Ext.P3 crime. The father of the first petitioner executed certain documents assigning his properties in favour of the children of the first petitioner. Being aggrieved by that action, respondents 4 and 5 are perpetually harassing the petitioners and their children. Therefore, the first petitioner has filed Exts.P4 and P5 representations before the police and thereafter, this writ petition W.P.(C).No.35477 of 2007 (W) -: 2 :- is filed seeking police protection to the lives of the petitioners and their children. 3. The fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of him and the fourth respondent denying all the allegations against them. He submits that during the life time of the father of the first petitioner and the fourth respondent, a portion of the property was sold for a huge amount. The first petitioner misappropriated the entire amount without paying anything to his brothers. Now, a civil suit is pending between the parties regarding partition of certain family properties. Earlier, the fourth respondent was harassed by the police at the instance of the first petitioner. So, the said respondent filed W.P.(C) No.19500/2007 against the police harassment and the same was disposed of by Ext.R5(1) judgment recording the submission of the S.I of Police (second respondent herein) that he has not harassed the first petitioner or has no intention to harass him. The fifth respondent denies all the allegations of the petitioners and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the first petitioner managed to get the entire family property by influencing his father and that his brothers W.P.(C).No.35477 of 2007 (W) -: 3 :- are on the streets which has led to various disputes between the brothers, and a civil suit is also pending. 5. We notice that the dispute between the brothers arose out of the discontentment in the apportionment of the family properties. It is common case that the civil suit between them is pending before the competent court. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and counter allegations, we feel that it is not proper for this Court to order protection of the police to one side or the other. If there is commission of any offence or threat from the part of the party respondents, the petitioners can take recourse to the ordinary remedies available to them before the competent civil court and criminal court. This does not mean that the powers of the police to take action if the commission of a cognizable offence is reported will be affected by this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE) ms