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 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24440 of 2011(D) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- PRASANNA P., AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.SHAJU, VILAMBATH HOUSE, KATTOOR POLICE,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SMT.M.SINDHU THANKAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI-679 303. PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. ARAVINDAKSHAN @ KANNAN, S/O.KUNHAN, AGED 34 YEARS,UZHUKUPURAKKAL HOUSE, PALAPPURAM POST,679 103 VIA LAKKIDI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. SHOWKATHALI, S/O.MOOSA, ALUNGOOTTATHIL HOUSE, KAPPUR-679 552. OTTAPALAM. 4. SHAFEEQUE,S/O.SHOWKATHALI, ALUNGOOTTATHILHOUSE, KAPPUR-679 552.OTTAPALAM. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALISSERI-679 536,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24440 of 2011(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF RENT CHIT DATED 24/07/10 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 08/10/10 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 26/08/11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.24440 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner, a lady has approached this Court seeking direction for police protection and protection from police. According to the petitioner she is the owner of the business under the name and style “Barakh Garments and Fancy Centre” conducted in a building belonging to the 3rd respondent. While so, she went abroad executing a Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd respondent. Misusing the above power of attorney, the 2nd respondent fabricated documents and when the petitioner came back, it was revealed that the 2nd respondent was holding himself out to be the proprietor of the business. The power of attorney was readily cancelled. Notwithstanding such cancellation, the 2nd respondent holds himself out to be the proprietor of the business and he is harassing the petitioner with the help of W. P. C. No.24440 of 2011 -2- the 5th respondent Sub Inspector of Police. 2. On considering the Writ Petition for admission, we directed the 5th respondent Sub Inspector of Police to issue notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C if the attendance of the petitioner is required in connection with any enquiry or investigation. We also directed that if the interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, the same should be conducted in the presence of a women police constable. The learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the averments in the Writ Petition before us and submit that both the directions sought for in the Writ Petition should be granted lest the petitioner should be in difficulties. 3. The learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions submitted that the facts are not as told by the petitioner. There was dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent over what was done by the 2nd respondent on the strength of the power of attorney. All those disputes were sorted out in the presence of the 3rd respondent landlord of the building. The building was surrendered back W. P. C. No.24440 of 2011 -3- to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner had second thoughts and what she did was to trespass into building. The 3rd respondent filed a complaint alleging criminal trespass and other related offences against the petitioner. On coming to know that the police was about to register a case against the petitioner only she approached this Court filing this Writ Petition giving a distorted version of facts. Crime No.345/11 has been registered by the Chalisseri police against the petitioner under Sections 448 and 427 IPC. The investigation is going on. There is no harassment according to Sri.Vipindas. 4. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that a case is not made out for issuance of any directions against police harassment. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that there is no law and order situation warranting rendition of police protection to the life of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. However, even as we dismiss this Writ Petition, W. P. C. No.24440 of 2011 -4- we direct the 5th respondent to keep vigil and ensure that the dispute between the petitioner, second respondent and the 3rd respondent does not give rise to any law and order situation. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-