IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2761 of 2011(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- DR.RADHA MOHAN, S/O.SUKUMARAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATHA PROTEIN PRIVATE LIMITED, RESIDING AT KAILAS, EZHUKONE PO, KOLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.SAIJU S. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, KOLLAM PO, PIN 691 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EZHUKONE PO, KOLLAM, PIN 691 505. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EZHUKONE POLICE STATION, EZHUKONE PO, KOLLAM, PIN 691 505. 4. SRI.SATHEESH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ABS CHANNEL PLUS VISUAL MEDIA ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED, SAI SADAN, MUSEUM ROAD,CHEMBUKAVU PO, THRISSUR-20. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R4 BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 2761 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 581/2010 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 501/2010 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.5.2010 UNDER SECTION 138(b) OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT. P3. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 7.1.2011 AND ITS RECEIPT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.2761 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner, an Ayurvedic Doctor and Managing Partner of a Private Limited Company has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection for his life and person against the alleged illegal, culpable and violent acts allegedly indulged in and apprehended from the fourth respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, there are monetary claims and disputes between the fourth respondent and the petitioner. The fourth respondent, in an attempt to enforce his alleged claims for money, is attempting to take law into his hands and to compel the petitioner to yield. He is engaging hirelings to enforce such monetary claims. The petitioner apprehends danger to his life and person. In these circumstances, the petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the wpc No.2761/2011 2 Constitution to protect his life. 3. The fourth respondent has entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that it is true that the fourth respondent has to get amounts from the petitioner. But, it is incorrect to say that the fourth respondent is attempting to take law into his hands and enforce the monetary claims by illegal and violent means. The fourth respondent has no objection against the grant of police protection for the petitioner, but it may be recorded unambiguously that the fourth respondent has no intention to cause any harm to the life or person of the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 submits that in the perception of the police officers, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. If it is revealed that there is any such threat, police shall take necessary and effective action to prevent the fourth respondent or any one from indulging in such conduct. The petitioner shall be at liberty to complain and the police shall take necessary action to abate any such threat, nuisance or danger to the life and person of the wpc No.2761/2011 3 petitioner, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. We record the submissions of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. We record the submissions of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. We are satisfied in these circumstances that no specific directions are necessary under Article 226 of the Constitution. We record that we have specifically accepted the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 that if there is any threat to the life or person of the petitioner, necessary police protection may be afforded to the petitioner. 6. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/