IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8759 of 2011(T) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- RETNAKARAN, KOLLAKAYIL, CHERAVALLY MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, ALAPPUZHA-688001. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM-690502. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM. 4. SATHEESH, S/O.CHANDRAN, KULLAKAYIL HOUSE, CHERUVALLY MURI, KAYAMKULAM. 690 502. 5. SANTHOSH, S/O.CHANDRAN, KULLAKAYIL HOUSE, CHERUVALLY MURI, KAYAMKULAM.690 502. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R4, R5 BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR, SMT.A.SALINI LAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.8759/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICTE DTD. 8.3.2010. P2:- COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICTE DTD. 4.5.2010 ISSUED BY MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, KAYAMKULAM. P3:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 12.5.2010. P4:- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DT. 2.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:8759 OF 2011 T ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th March, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 to respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection to the petitioner against culpable, contumacious and violent acts apprehended from respondents 4 and 5. 2. According to the petitioner he resides in his house. Respondents 4 and 5 are closely related to him. They are also his neighbours. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5 has been indulging in contumacious, culpable and violent acts on 8-3-2010, 4-5-2010 and 28-2-2011. In the first two instances petitioner had suffered injuries including loss of teeth. Though the petitioner had complained to the police authorities, police authorities are guilty of inaction. It is in these circumstances the petitioner claims the relief of police protection in this petition. 3. Respondents 4 and 5 have entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel argues that the petitioner is guilty WPC 8759/2011 2 of gross suppression of vital facts. There is a dispute between the petitioner and his wife. A crime has been registered under Section 498A IPC. Investigation in in progress. The wife of the petitioner is none other than the maternal aunt i.e mother's sister of the respondents. Petitioner is guilty of cruelty against his wife, that is the maternal aunt of the respondents. There is also proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act between the petitioner and his wife. The petitioner seems to entertain an unjustified prejudice/impression that respondents 4 and 5 are responsible for giving support to the wife of the petitioner in the cases initiated by her. It is in these circumstances that he keeps on making false allegations against respondents 4 and 5. No incident as alleged had taken place on 8-3-2010, 4-5-2010 or 28-2-2011 in which the petitioner had suffered injuries at the hands of respondents 4 and 5. Police had investigated into the allegations and were satisfied that the allegations were false. That is why police did not initiate any action against respondents 4 and 5. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that categorical undertaking/submissions of respondents 4 and 5 that they have WPC 8759/2011 3 no intention and shall not in any way pose any threat or harm to the life or person of the petitioner may be recorded and these proceedings may now be closed. 4. The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instructions from the third respondent submits that in the perception of the police officials there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. There are disputes between the petitioner and his wife. Respondents 4 and 5 are close relatives of the wife of the petitioner. In these circumstances there is no necessity to issue any direction under Art.226 submits the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 5. The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instructions submits that if there be any threat against the petitioner from respondents 4 and 5 the police shall respond adequately. In these circumstances this petition may be dismissed submits the learned Govt. Pleader. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. It is the duty of the police to take action if any crimes are committed. It is equally their duty to prevent the commission of crimes. Normally it is not necessary for this Court to issue any specific WPC 8759/2011 4 directions to the police to take action on crimes committed or to prevent commission of crimes. In an exceptional case where satisfactory reasons are there, there may be the necessity of issuing such specific directions. Suffice it to say that after considering all the relevant inputs in this case we are not persuaded to agree that any specific directions need be issued. This petition can in these circumstances be closed we are satisfied. 7. In the result; a) This petition is dismissed. b) We make record that in taking this decision we have relied heavily on the statement of the learned Govt. Pleader that if there be any threat to the person or life of the petitioner third respondent shall take necessary and adequate action. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 8759/2011 5 WPC 8759/2011 6