IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15229 of 2011(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DIVAKARAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 76, RESIDING AT SAKTHI NILAYAM, SANTHIVILA, NEMOM. BY ADVS. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR, SRI. P.M. SANEER, SMT. NEENA JOSE, SRI.THOSHIN V.S. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEMOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4. SASTHOSH KUMAR, UMAYAMMA BHAVAN, VELLAYANI, NEMOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R4 BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.15229/2011 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2061/70 DTD. 24/09/1970 REGISTERED AT THE NEMOM SUB REGISTRY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 23/05/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION IN O.S.801/2011 IN I.A.3572/11 DTD. 28/05/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 2/06/2011 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.15229 of 2011-C ***************************** Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner, a person aged about 75 years and unmarried, has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 to 3 - all police officials, to afford protection to the petitioner against contumacious, culpable and violent acts on the part of the 4th respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, he is aged 75 years. He exclusively owns certain items of properties. The 4th respondent is a nephew of his. The nephew has been tormenting the petitioner with demands that the petitioner must settle certain properties in the name of his wife and children. The petitioner is unwilling to do the same. The 4th respondent is resorting to high handed activities to compel the petitioner to so execute the settlement deed in favour of his wife and children. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions. W.P(C) No.15229 of 2011-C 2 3. Notice was given. The learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 to 3. A counsel appears for the 4th respondent. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that all allegations raised against the 4th respondent are false and incorrect. It is true that there are certain disputes between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. But it is absolutely incorrect to say that the 4th respondent is resorting to any illegal action to compel the petitioner to execute any document in favour of the 4th respondent's wife and children. The 4th respondent has no intention to do the same. No directions under Article 226 are, in these circumstances, necessary in this petition, submits counsel. 4. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 to 3 submits that in the perception of the police officials notwithstanding the fact that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. If there be any such threat, the petitioner can make a complaint before the 3rd respondent and respondents 1 to 3 shall respondent to it adequately and effectively, if the allegations are true. No specific directions are necessary, submits the learned Government Pleader. W.P(C) No.15229 of 2011-C 3 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are satisfied that the submissions of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent and the learned Government Pleader can be accepted and this proceedings can be closed. 6. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. If the petitioner has any grievance against the 4th respondent, he can make a complaint before the 3rd respondent and thereupon necessary and adequate action shall be taken by respondents 1 to 3 to deter any threat to the life or person of the petitioner; c) In the light of the above direction, we think it unnecessary to issue any further specific directions. d) Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/