IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12211 of 2011(B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ABDUL JALEEL, S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY, KOLLANCHERI HOUSE, CHEMMAD, THIROORANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SRI.K.RAKESH. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM-676 505. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIROORANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 306. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 304. 4. BABU @ MUHAMMED, S/O.KARUVANNIL MYTHI, KARUVANNIL HOUSE, KUZHIPPURAM, IRINGALUR.P.O., VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-676 304. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN, SMT.GEETHA P.MENON, SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.12211/2011 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE DAUGHTER OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 17/12/2010. P2: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.346/2010 OF THE VENGARA POLICE STATION DTD. 18/12/2010. P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DTD. NIL. P4: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 9/12/2010. P5: COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. NIL. P6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM DTD. 31/3/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(A): COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2 DTD. 8/12/2010. R4(B): COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2. DTD. 15/12/2010. R4(C): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.2/DCO/RIT/I11 SENT BY RESPONDENT NO.3 DTD. 17/03/2011 (29/3/2011). /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 12211 of 2011-B ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 - all police officials, to afford protection to the petitioner against contumacious, culpable and violent acts that he apprehends from the 4th respondent. 2. The 4th respondent is none other than the son-in-law of the petitioner i.e., the daughter's husband. It appears that there are disputes between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The relationship between the petitioner's daughter and the 4th respondent is strained. A complaint was filed under Sec.498A IPC before the police and a crime has been registered. There are other proceedings also pending before the matrimonial court. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is now turning W.P.(C) No. 12211 of 2011 -: 2 :- against the petitioner to compel him to withdraw the cases initiated by the petitioner's daughter against the 4th respondent. It is in this context that he has come to this Court seeking directions under Art.226 of the Constitution. 3. The 4th respondent has entered appearance through counsel. A counter affidavit has been filed. The learned counsel submits that the boot is on the other leg and it is actually the petitioner who is trying to assault and indulge in culpable and violent conduct against the 4th respondent. According to the 4th respondent, long before the present controversies arose, the petitioner and his two sons had attacked the 4th respondent. In respect of that an earlier crime has been registered by the police. As counter blast against that crime, subsequent allegations are being made frequently by the petitioner and her daughter. There is absolutely no necessity to issue any directions under Art.226 of the Constitution. The 4th respondent shall not indulge in any contumacious or culpable act against the petitioner or his daughter. This undertaking may be accepted and the proceedings may be closed. It may be ensured that the 4th respondent is not attacked by the petitioner. W.P.(C) No. 12211 of 2011 -: 3 :- 4. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the perception of the police officials, there is no threat whatsoever to the life or person of the petitioner. It is true that two crimes have been registered and matrimonial proceedings are pending between the 4th respondent and his wife i.e., the daughter of the petitioner. There is no necessity to issue any directions under Art.226 of the Constitution. The police shall ensure that any such attempt to interfere with the law and order situation by the petitioner attacking the 4th respondent or the 4th respondent attacking the petitioner is frustrated. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We take note of the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. We are satisfied that the undertaking of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 can be recorded and proceedings can be closed. 6. In the result: (a) This writ petition is allowed. (b) We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the police shall intervene if there be any threat W.P.(C) No. 12211 of 2011 -: 4 :- against the petitioner from the 4th respondent or against the 4th respondent by the petitioner. Either can complain to the police in the event of any such contumacious and culpable acts on the part of the other. 7. Accepting the said submissions of the learned Government Pleader, no further directions are issued under Art.226 of the Constitution. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(C) No. 12211 of 2011 -: 5 :-