IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34451 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BILAL,AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED HAJI,KOTHUVALPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KURUMBATHOOR,THIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM-676505. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPAKAMCHERRY POLICE STATION,MALAPPURAM-676505. 3. ABDUL RASSAC,S/O.ERAMULLAN, PUTHIYAKANTATHIL HOUSE,PANAPPUZHA,MATHAMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-676505. ADV. SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1&2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 33506 OF 2010. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 34451 of 2010(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.802 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE TALIPARAMBU POLICE STATION. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.11.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE R. BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos. 34451 and 33506 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of January 2011 JUDGMENT Basant J., These petitions are filed by the rival contestants seeking police protection for themselves. 2. In W.P. © No. 33506 of 2010 the grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent, an advocate and respondents 3 and 4 - private citizens are threatening physically and vexing the petitioner on the plea that the petitioner while he was employed abroad is liable to return certain amount to the brother of the third respondent. The petitioner apprehends physical harm and it is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to the first respondent to provide police protection to the petitioners against respondents 2, 3 and 4. W.P.(C) Nos. 34451 and 33506 of 2010 :2: 3. Respondents 2 to 4 have a total different version to advance. According to them it is true that there is a dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and the brother of the third respondent on the other. That relates to a claim for money. The respondents have no intention to take law into their hands. There was suggestion that the matter can be talked over and settled. In all bonafides, the second respondent, an advocate along with the party respondents had gone to the house of the petitioner in the hope that there can be a healthy conciliation/settlement. According to the party respondents, there was nothing untoward in the said meeting and in fact there was an invitation to appear later at Thaliparambu to continue to attempt to settle the disputes. But when respondents 2 to 4 went for such meeting for conciliation/settlement, they were allegedly assaulted and that obliged the respondents to file a complaint which is now registered as Crime No.802 of 2010. They assert that they have no intention whatsoever in any way to vex, harass or obstruct the petitioner, but W.P.(C) Nos. 34451 and 33506 of 2010 :3: it may be ensured that the petitioner does not indulge in any such contumacious conduct. 4. The petitioner, in turn, asserts that he has no intention to indulge in any contumacious conduct against the third respondent, who has filed W.P. © No. 34451 of 2010 for police protection. 5. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the police officials – respondents submits that in the perception of the police, there is no threat to the life or person of either petitioners. No specific directions are necessary. If there be any threat against the respective petitioners, the police officials–respondents shall take necessary action, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. We have considered all the relevant factors in the case. We record the submission/ undertaking on behalf of the respective petitioners in the two petitions that they shall not indulge in any contumacious conduct against the respective respondents. We take note of the undertaking by the learned Government pleader that if there be any genuine complaint from either side, the respondent – W.P.(C) Nos. 34451 and 33506 of 2010 :4: police officials shall take necessary action. We are satisfied in these circumstances that no further specific directions are necessary. 7. These writ petitions are in these circumstances allowed in part to the above extent. R. BASANT, (JUDGE) M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/