IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 18780 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SEETHAMMA, W/O.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, HOUSE NO.XXIII/2005, P.K.NAGER 204, PATTATHILKKAVU P.O., KOLLAM 13. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOLLAM DISTRICT, KOLLAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION. 3. CHITTAN, P.C.4417, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM S/O.SADANANDAN, KADAKAPPATTIL HOUSE, PUTHENTHURA.P.O., NEENDAKARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 4. SURESH, POLICE CONSTABLE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM (MOB.9349286481) 5. SARATH KUMAR, S/O.VIKRAMAN, KADAKAPPATTIL HOUSE, PUTHENTHURA.P.O., NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. 6. NEENA, W/O.SAJI, VALIYAVILA VEEDU, CHERIYAZHEEKKAL.P.O., ALAPPADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALY, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA FOR R5 & 6 ADV.SRI.R.RANJITH GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.18780/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PETITION DT.18.6.2008. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R6(1): ORDER DT.17.5.2008 IN C.M.P.NO.3468/2008 IN M.C.N.74/2008 OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, KOLLAM. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18780 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner claims, she is a tenant of a building owned by respondents 5 and 6. She claims, she has paid Rs.30,000/- as advance and the monthly rent payable is Rs.3,000/-. She along with her husband is residing in the said building since 12.2.2008. While so, the respondents 3 and 4, who were police officers attached to Kollam East Police Station, came to the petitioner's residence and threatened her to give vacant possession of the building. They said, she will be implicated in criminal cases, unless she met their demand. On being summoned, the petitioner went to the police station along with her brother-in-law, Mr.Jayakumar. Mr.Jayakumar was retained in the police station till 7.p.m. He was abused and threatened. In view of the threat of forcible eviction, the petitioner filed O.S.No. 377/2008, seeking an order against respondents 5 and 6 not to evict her, otherwise than in W.P.(C) No.18780/2008 2 accordance with law. The said suit is pending. On 14.6.2008, the respondents 4 to 6 came to her house and asked her to vacate the building, immediately. Her husband was manhandled by them. Again, on 16.6.2008, they came and threatened them. Feeling aggrieved by the harassment from the part of the police, the petitioner filed Ext.P1 representation before the Director General of Police and thereafter this writ petition is filed, seeking appropriate directions against the police not to harass her. 2. The respondents 5 and 6 have filed a counter affidavit stating that the building in question belongs to them. The petitioner was never inducted as a tenant in the said building by them. There is no agreement of lease between the petitioner and the said respondents. The allegation that the petitioner was residing in the building since 12.2.2008 is absolutely unfounded. She is a stooge of the 6th respondent's husband. The said respondent has filed a petition, under the provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kollam. The said W.P.(C) No.18780/2008 3 court has passed Ext.R6(1) order restraining the 1st respondent therein, who is the husband of the 6th respondent in this writ petition, from entering into the scheduled property or causing any nuisance. The respondents 2 and 3 therein were also restrained from entering the scheduled property. The writ petitioner is the sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent therein. She has been set up by the 1st respondent therein to harass the the 6th respondent. 3. The petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit dealing with the above averments in the counter affidavit of respondents 5 and 6. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that all the allegations made against the police are false. The police never went to the building nor asked the petitioner to vacate from there. The police does not admit that the petitioner is residing in that building. He further submitted that the police have never seen the petitioner. Having regard to the facts disclosed from the pleadings and materials in this writ petition, we feel that this writ petition is an W.P.(C) No.18780/2008 4 abuse of the process of the Court. Though the counter affidavit of the respondents 5 and 6 was filed as early as on 26.6.2008, the petitioner has chosen not to file any reply affidavit so far. That means, she has failed to dispute the correctness of the facts stated in the counter affidavit. She did not produce the lease deed under which she claims she got possession of the building. It is evident from the facts disclosed that the petitioner did not have any cause of action to approach this Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with costs. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps