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 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35042 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. DEVARAJAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, MULAVANETHU HOUSE, KARUVATTUMKUZHI MURI, KEERIKKADU VILLAGE, KAREELAKULANGARA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 572. 2. SOORYA SREE, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.DEVARAJAN OF DO. 3. THAJESH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, THARABHAVANAM OF DO. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 691 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 691 001. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAKKUVALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 691 001. 4. SUNIL, S/O.NATARAJAN, ANIL VIHAR, SOORANADU NORTH, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, ANAYADI.P.O., KOLLAM-691 002. 5. REGHUNATHAN, S/O.KOCHUKRISHNAN, SARAVANA BHAVAN (AMBALATHINVILA), KAITHAKKAL MURI, PALLIKKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 691 523. 6. PRASANNAKUMAR (MADHU), S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, GOKULATHIL 9EANI VILAYIL), ANAYADI NORTH.P.O., KOLLAM. 691 002. 7. NISHA, W/O.PRASANNAKUMAR (MADHU) OF DO. DO. 691 002. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R7 BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.35042 OF O2010 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT TO DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DATED 19.11.2010 BY PETTIONERS. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY IST PETITIONER TO IST RESPONDENT DATED 19.11.2010. K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.35042 of 2010-E ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to grant adequate police protection to the life of the petitioners and property of the 2nd petitioner in Sooranadu Village in Kollam District.” 2. Briefly put, the case of petitioners is as follows: Respondents 4 and 5 are relatives of the 2nd petitioner. They are compelling the 2nd petitioner to sell the property of the 2nd petitioner for a higher price directly and indirectly. But, petitioners 1 and 2 refused the demand. Respondents 4 to 7 want to annex the property of the petitioners 1 and 2 with the property of respondents 6 and 7. It is stated that on 15.11.2010 at the instance of respondents 4 to 7 the 3rd respondent illegally detained petitioners 1 and 3 WPC 35042/2010 -2- in the police station since 10 P.M till evening on the next day and a false crime is registered against the Ist petitioner. It is finally stated that the 7th respondent directly told that if they come to the property, they will be killed by deputing 'quotation group'. 3. Today, when the matter came up, we heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7. Learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 Sri.R.T.Pradeep would point out that the 7th respondent is the wife of the 6th respondent who is working abroad and she has recently delivered a child and he denies the allegations made against respondents 6 and 7. He denies the allegation in the writ petition about the 7th respondent threatening to kill petitioners 1 and 3 by deputing quotation group. We record the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 that respondents 6 and 7 will not in any way threaten the life of the petitioners or lay any claim to the property of the petitioners. According to the party respondents, on 15.11.2010 petitioners 1 and 3 attempted to construct a pathway through the property of the 7th respondent and a WPC 35042/2010 -3- crime has been registered and they were arrested and produced before the Magistrate and enlarged. 4. We direct that in case the petitioners bring any complaint of threat to the notice of 3rd respondent as against respondents 4 to 7, the 3rd respondent will look into the same and if the threat is found to be genuine, he shall afford necessary protection for the life of the petitioners as against respondents 4 to 7. We make it clear that we have not expressed any view regarding the merits of the allegations of the petitioners in the writ petition. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS