IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23181 of 2011(W) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ JOHNY THOMAS @ JOHNY SAGARIGA, AGED 52 YEARS, BUSINESS, S/O. THOMAS, SAGARIGA HOUSE, 12TH LANE, TOC H ROAD, VYTTILA-682019. BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW SMT.SIMLA PRABHAKARAN SRI.ARUN ALEX RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-682031 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-682031 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM-682031 4. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM-682031 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 WP(C).No. 23181 of 2011(W) -2- 6. SRI. A.V. GOVINDANKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, BABA CREATIONS, C/O. MOUNI BABA, PARASANTH,KULAKKAD.P.O., PIN-671357, THRIKKARIPUR, KASARGOD DISTRICT-691521 ADV. SRI.JAI GEORGE FOR R6 SMT.KAVYA P.PRASAD FOR R6 SRI.HANIL KUMAR, GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23181 of 2011(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER's EXTS EXT.P1:- PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 11/11/04 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.23181 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner engaged in the business of film distribution and distribution of other products pertaining to music field and cine filed has approached this Court seeking protection for his life and property and for members of his family. According to him, the 6th respondent who is a film producer is causing threat to him and members of his family and also to his properties. Though he filed Ext.P2 before the 1st respondent no action has so far been taken on Ext.P2 by him. On considering this Writ Petition for admission, we on 25/08/11 passed the following interim order. “In the meanwhile, the Government Pleader will seek instructions from R1 as to whether any enquiry is conducted on Ext.P2 and as to what is the result of the enquiry. If no enquiry is so far conducted on Ext.P2, R1 will conduct enquiry immediately and if the enquiry reveals that there is threat to the life of the petitioner on account of W. P. C. No.23181 of 2011 -2- the 6th respondent, he will take necessary action so as to protect the petitioner's life.” 2. Today, entering appearance on behalf of 6th respondent Sri.Jai George, the learned counsel would submit that the 6th respondent has no intention whatsoever to cause any threat to the lives of the petitioner or any members of his family. The petitioner owes a substantial amount of money to the 6th respondent on account of an agreement executed between them and the 6th respondent is only trying to recover those amounts through a lawful process. A suit has already been instituted by the 6th respondent against the petitioner. 3. The learned Government Pleader pursuant to instructions received on the basis of our interim order dated 25/08/11 submitted that the enquiry conducted into Exts.P2 and P3 reveal that there are disputes between the petitioner and the 6th respondent over a film distributorship agreement executed between them. Under that agreement the 6th respondent claims that substantial amounts are due to him W. P. C. No.23181 of 2011 -3- from the petitioner and the 6th respondent only demanded those amounts from the petitioner. The result of the enquiry is to the effect that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner or for that matter any member of the petitioner's family from the 6th respondent. 4. The question which arises for decision in this Writ Petition is whether there is warrant for issuance of the police protection direction sought for. In view of the stand taken by the learned Government Pleader based on the instructions given to him by the police and also by the learned counsel for the 6th respondent, we do not find any reason for issuing the directions sought for in this Writ Petition straight away. In fact, in our interim order dated 25/08/11 itself, we had directed the 1st respondent to take appropriate action for protecting the life of the petitioner, if the enquiry reveals that there is threat from the part of the 6th respondent. We dispose of the Writ Petition directing respondents 1 and 2 to keep vigil and to ensure that the dispute between the petitioner and the 6th respondent do not give rise to any law W. P. C. No.23181 of 2011 -4- and order problem. If petitions are received in future from the petitioner or from the 6th respondent complaining of any threat or danger to their lives from the other party, proper enquiries will be conducted into such complaints and appropriate actions will be taken on the basis of the facts revealed in such enquiries. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-