IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2010 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35517 of 2010(L) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. D.SAJEEV, S/O.DAMODARAN, AGED 55 KAMBISSERIL HOUSE, KADUVINAL PO, VALLIKUNNAM 690 501. 2. REMANI, W/O. D.SAJEEV, AGED 48 DO.DO.. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOLLAM DISRICT PIN 601 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PIN 691 001 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION,VALLIKUNNAM PIN 690 501 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOTTIYAM PIN 686 001 5. SASEENDRABABU, SANDYA BHAVAN OPPOSITE IRE, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM 691 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISHMA. ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.35517 OF 2010 L PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 6.11.2010 SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT SENT TO THE HOME MINISTER, KERALA. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT SENT TO THE DGP OF POLICE, KERALA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //True Copy// PS to Judge. K.M. JOSEPH & M. C. HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO. 35517 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th December, 2010. JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief: "Issue a writ of mandamus compelling the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and the 4th respondents to grant adequate and effective police protection to the life and properties of the petitioners." 2. Petitioners are husband and wife. Allegation is against the fifth respondent. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the fifth 2 respondent would submit that actually the second petitioner owes money to the mother-in-law of the fifth respondent and a demand was made for return of the amount and that is all what has happened and there is no threat to the life of the petitioners and that the fifth respondent does not intend to threaten the life of the petitioners. He woud also submit that only legal steps will be taken for recovery of the amount. We record the said submissions and we direct that in the unlikely event of the petitioners being constrained to complain before the second respondent of any threat to their life from the fifth respondent, the second responsdent will look into it and if the threat is found to be genuine, he shall give protection to the life of the petitioners as against the fifth respondent. We make it clear that we have not pronounced on the merits of the claim and if the matter comes up before the competent civil court, the said court will proceed to decide the matter 3 untrammeled by any observation contained in this Judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE kbk. //True Copy// PS to Judge