IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 10039 of 2011(D) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. MATHAI, S/O. MATHAI, AGED 73 YEARS, PALIKODATHU HOUSE, PEECHANIKADU, PULIYANAM.P.O. 2. MARIAMMA, W/O. MATHAI,AGED 67 YEARS, PALIKODATHU HOUSE, PEECHANIKADU, PULIYANAM.P.O BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY (LAW AND ORDER) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM -01. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA - 683 101. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY - 683 572. 4. SRI. KURIAKOSE, THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY - 683 572. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ANGAMALY - 683 572. 6. KUNJAPPAN, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 55 YEARS, PARAYIL HOUSE, PULIYANAM.P.O, PULIYANAM -PIN - 683 572. 7. ANNAMMA, W/O. KUNJAPPAN, AGED 53 YEARS, PARAYIL HOUSE, PULIYANAM.P.O, PULIYANAM- PIN - 683 572. WP(C) NO.10039/2011 8. SHANTY, D/O. KUNJAPPAN, PARAYIL HOUSE, PULIYANAM.P.O, PULIYANAM, PIN - 683 572. 9. SHAJI, D/O. KUNJAPPAN, PARAYIL HOUSE, PULIYANAM.P.O, PULIYANAM, PIN -683 572. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R6 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.A.K.SAITHU MOHAMMED, SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.10039/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITINER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA DTD. 25.3.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 10039 of 2011-D ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioners are spouses. They have come to this Court complaining about harassment by the police at the instance of respondents 6 to 9. and also claiming protection against illegal acts of respondents 6 to 9. 2. According to the petitioners, respondents 6 to 9 have some claim against the son-in-law of the petitioners - one Mathew. Respondents 6 to 9 are resorting to highhanded methods against the petitioners to claim amounts from the said son-in-law. The petitioners have no liability. The police are not taking any action when complaints are made. Police want the petitioners to settle the claim of respondents 6 to 9. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners have come to this Court complaining simultaneously of police harassment and claiming protection. 3. Respondents 6 to 9 have entered appearance before this Court. According to respondents 6 to 9, the petitioners have borrowed an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- on behalf of their son-in- W.P.(C) No. 10039 of 2011 -: 2 :- law. They are liable to return the amount. It is incorrect to say that respondents 6 to 9 have resorted to any highhanded acts to enforce such payment. Payment is due to respondents 6 to 9. They shall take steps in accordance with law to recover the amount from the petitioners and their son-in-law. They shall not indulge in any contumacious or culpable acts against the petitioners to enforce payment of the said amount. The petitioners stoutly deny the allegation that any amount is due from them. 4. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that there has been no instance of harassment of the petitioners by the police. In the perception of the police officers, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioners. If there be any such threat, necessary action shall be taken by the police. 5. Parties were referred for mediation; but attempts for a mediated settlement has not succeeded. When the matter came up on 5/4/2011, an interim direction was issued by this Court that: “adequate police protection shall be afforded by respondents 2, 3 and 5 to the petitioner against any illegal, contumacious and culpable acts on the part of W.P.(C) No. 10039 of 2011 -: 3 :- respondents 6 to 9.” 6. It is submitted that the interim directions have been in force and have been properly enforced. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays, the learned counsel for respondents 6 to 9 accept and the learned Government Pleader endorses that the interim order can now be made absolute and further proceedings can be closed. 8. In the result: (a) This writ petition is allowed. (b) Respondents 2, 3 and 5 shall afford protection to the petitioners against any illegal, contumacious and culpable acts on the part of respondents 6 to 9 for the alleged enforcement of the amount allegedly due from the petitioners and their son-in- law to respondents 6 to 9. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge