IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17444 of 2009(A)
1. P.V.RAJAMMA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. RADHAKRISHNAN M.N.,
6. PRABHAKUMARI,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :28/07/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) NO. 17444 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Raman, J.
Petitioner is the proprietor of “Shine Hotel” at Panthalam.
Respondents 5 and 6 are husband and wife. It is alleged that because of
the high-handed action on the part of respondents 5 and 6, petitioner is
not able to live in peace. It is admitted that petitioner borrowed from the
5th respondent some amount; but according to the petitioner, the same
was returned without default. Again, petitioner borrowed Rs. 5 lakhs
which was also returned. According to the petitioner, thus there is money
transaction between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. According to
her, the 5th respondent has sent a notice alleging that amounts are due
from her as per the chitty subscribed by her. Petitioner pretends
ignorance of any such chitty being conducted by her. According to the
petitioner, there is threat from Respondents 5 and 6 and they trespassed
into her residential house and threated her with dire consequences, if she
did not pay the amount. Telephonic threats were also made by them.
Hence petitioner seeks police protection.
WP(C) 17444/2009 2
2. Learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the 4th
respondent filed a statement. Petitioner is stated to be the wife of one
Swaminathan who is running a Bar Hotel in which Swaminathan and
their son were partners. Swaminathan is absconding. All the members
of the family including the petitioner, had financial transaction with
others and several cases are pending against the husband and son of the
petitioner, in which warrants are pending. Details regarding cases where
warrant is pending against the husband and son are given in the
statement. Summons is also issued by the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class – VII, Thiruvananthapuram,in S.T. 489/2006 against the petitioner
herein.
3. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit for himself and
on behalf of the 6th respondent. The allegations and averments made in
the writ petition are denied. It is stated that the petitioner and her
husband are partners in a builder concern and the husband of the
petitioner executed an agreement on behalf of the builder concern
assuring that they will allot the 3rd floor portion of the building
construction which they are going to effect upon the property having an
extent of 17.122 cents in Sy. No.. 2239/D-1 and 2239/A-5 of Cowdiar
Village, Thiruvananthapuram, and received rs. 20 lakhs from the 5th
WP(C) 17444/2009 3
respondent. It is denied that Respondents 5 and 6 have taken any
highhanded action against the petitioner.
4. The question is whether there is any threat to the life of the
petitioner as alleged. Except the ipsi dixit of the petitioner, there is no
other materials before us. Respondents 5 and 6 have denied having
caused any threat to the life of the petitioner or trespassed in to her
house. The Police officers, in their statement also stated that there is no
such threat. In the circumstances, if there is any such threat to the
petitioner, she is free to approach the Magistrate Court by filing a
criminal complaint. In the absence of any materials placed on record,
this Court we find that police protection cannot be granted to the
petitioner. But this will not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking
appropriate remedy under the criminal law.
With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed.
P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.
KNC/-