IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4058 of 2010(F) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.T. JOHN, AGED 70, S/O.K.G. THOMAS, KALLARACKAL, KATTADI PARAMBU, DHANYA ROAD END, CHALIKKAVATTOM, VENNALA, P.O., KOCHI - 28. BY ADV. SRI.S.MURALI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. KIRAN AGED ABOUT 32, RESIDING AT ELOOR, PATHALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, MOBILE NO: 9388691878. 4. SUDHEESH, AGED ABOUT 43, S/O. APPACHAN RESIDING AT VELI, PALLURUTHY, ERANAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN. R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.U.ZIYAD SMT.RAMEENA.P.K. SMT.C.B.ANUROOPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.4058 of 2010 APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1..A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5.2.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2..A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.54/2010 DATED 6.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P1 COMPLAINT. EXT.P3..A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 5.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES FOR THE DESPATCH OF A COPY OF EXHIBIT P1 COMPLAINT TO THE IST RESPONDENT. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.4058 of 2010-F ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-- “i). to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 2 to provide adequate protection to the life of the petitioner and ; ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 2nd respondent to take further action on the basis of Exhibit P1 complaint.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:-- Petitioner is a retired military staff aged 70 having so many ailments living with his wife and grandson. Petitioner is having health problems. According to him, his son was having a job abroad. It is stated that petitioner's son together with his wife and 3rd and 4th respondents tried to migrate to Italy in search of a job and that due to illegalities in documents they could not reach Italy and they were forced to WPC 4058/2010 -2- come back to India about two years back. It is stated that there was a dispute existing between the petitioner's son and the 3rd and 4th respondents regarding the money they had spent for a non-fruitful journey to a foreign country and that the petitioner reliably understands that the 3rd and 4th respondents are trying to recover the money they had spent. It is stated that on 2.2.2010 the 3rd and 4th respondents together with their henchmen came to the petitioner's house demanding Rs.6 lakhs. Petitioner has a case that they have intimidated the petitioner and his wife and have forced them to sign blank non-judicial stamp papers and other blank papers and manhandled and abused them. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 would submit that actually the petitioner himself had taken Rs.3 lakhs from them each. Of course, the respondents 3 and 4 would also deny the other allegations made by the petitioner against them. If respondents 3 and 4 have any monetary claims against the petitioner that is to be WPC 4058/2010 -3- taken up in the appropriate forum as per law and they may not have any right to attack or otherwise intimidate the petitioner. Of course, the case of the petitioner in this regard is denied by respondents 3 and 4. The writ petition is disposed of directing that as and when need arises, the 2nd respondent will provide adequate protection to the petitioner against respondents 3 and 4 for his life. However, we make it very clear that we are not pronouncing on the allegations as to monetary transactions made on the one hand by the petitioner and the 3rd and 4th respondents on the other hand. It is for the parties to work out their remedies as are available in law. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS