IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14870 of 2008(T) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- RAMLATH,W/O. NAZEER, R.N.HOUSE, T.B.JUNCTION, KUMMALOOR, CHATHANNAOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, POLICEQUARTERS, KOLLAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR ,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. OMANA AMMA, VADAKKEVILA VEEDU, MELEVILA, KOTTARA, MIYYANNOOR, P.O.KOLLAM DISTRICT 5. PRAMEELA, D/O. OMANA AMMA, VADAKKEVILA VEEDU,MELEVILA, KOTTARA, MIYYANNOOR, P.O.KOLLAM DISTRICT . 6. PREETHA, D/O. OMANA AMMA, VADAKKEVILA VEEDU,MELEVILA, KOTTARA, MIYYANNOOR, P.O.KOLLAM DISTRICT . BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL – R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS - R4 TO R6 SRI.MURALI MADANTHACODU - R4 TO R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.14870/2008 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1; COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 11/05/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 11/05/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A): COPY OF THE DOCUMENT WRITTEN AND SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 21/06/2007. EXT.R4(B): COPY OF THE FAKE VISA. EXT.R4(C): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 29/04/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 14870 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner is a house wife. Her husband is in the Gulf. She submits that respondents 4 to 6 are money lenders. Respondents 5 and 6 are the daughters of the 4th respondent . The petitioner borrowed Rs.30,000/- from the 4th respondent and the interest for the said amount was being paid regularly. While so the 4th respondent wanted the entire money back. She along with others came to the house of the petitioner on 10-5-2008 and demanded the money. She refused to go out of the petitioner's house. During the night when the petitioner attempted to close her gate, she was manhandled and the 4th respondent and others remained in the house during the whole night. The petitioner was hospitalised on the next day. Her sister filed Ext.P1 petition before the Sub Inspector of Police, Chathannur pointing out the incidents which took place in the night of 10-5-2008, which was followed by Ext.P2 representation before the Superintendent of Police, Kollam. But the police did not register any crime or investigate WPC.14870/2008 -2- into the above incident. Even thereafter when respondents 3 to 5 continued to threaten her, she has approached this Court seeking police protection. 2. Learned Government Pleader upon instruction submitted that on receipt of the representation made by the petitioner an enquiry was held in the matter. The allegations were found incorrect. It was also understood that the petitioner has collected money from several persons offering visa for employment abroad. Since she has failed to give employment, those persons are coming every day to the petitioner's house and demanding the money back. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it is submitted that the petitioner received Rs.1,30,000/- from her agreeing to give employment visa to her son Pradeep for employment in Saudi Arabia. Ext.R4(a) is the document written by the petitioner evidencing the above transaction. The 4th respondent's son was taken to Bombay after receiving the money. He remained in Bombay for about 10 days. Since visa was not arranged, he had to return. The 4th respondent demanded back the money on 28-4-2008. The petitioner and her sister shouted at her and abused her. So she filed Ext.R4(c) petition before the police. The allegation that the party respondents attacked the petitioner on 10-5-2008 is false and unfounded. So the party respondents pray for WPC.14870/2008 -3- dismissal of this writ petition. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations made against her. She submits that she has nothing to do with visa racket. The 4th respondent's son is a criminal and to escape from arrest he went to Bombay. The allegation that he was taken to Bombay and detained by the petitioner was denied. Going by the allegations and counter allegations, we feel that this is not a fit case where this Court should invoke the extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner can invoke the ordinary remedies available to her before the civil/criminal court. Therefore, the prayer for police protection is declined. But this will not affect the powers of the police to take any action in accordance with law, if any cognizable offene is reported. The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE WPC.14870/2008 -4-