IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 35567 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MANJUSHA.S,AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.THANKAMMA,"LATHALAYAM",EDAVANMUGAL, ARUVIKARA.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR SRI.Y.BOBBY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION,NEDUMANGAD. 3. MADHU,MADHU BHAVAN,EDAVANMUGAL, ARUVIKARA.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & 2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. T.K. VIPIN DAS ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 35567 of 2009 M - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to render adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner's life and property. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the property in Aruvikkara village, Thiruvananthapuram. He is residing in that property. Third respondent, who is residing near the petitioner, initiated steps to demolish the fence of the petitioner for widening the pathway to enter into his house. The third respondent and his henchmen threatened the petitioner. He filed Exts.P1 and P2 complaints before respondents 1 and 2. W.P.(C).No. 35567 of 2009 2 3. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the third respondent as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the third respondent submit that there are two civil suits pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that those suits do not relate to the property in question. The petitioner seeks protection for his life. 5. We feel that essentially the dispute arises out of a civil suit and we relegate the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, bearing in mind the decisions reported in P.R.Muralidharan & ors. v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar & ors ((2006) 4 SCC 501), Kunhumuhammed v. Bava Haji (1999 (2) KLT 816 and Abdul Rahim & anr. v. Nazarullah & anr. (1998 (2) KLJ 643). No doubt, if the petitioner has a complaint about threat to his life, he can approach the police authorities. We record the submission of the counsel for the third respondent that the third respondent does not have any intention to threaten or intimidate the petitioner. W.P.(C).No. 35567 of 2009 3 6. We dispose of this Writ Petition relegating the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for ventilation of his grievances. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm