Issac Devassy vs The Commissioner Of Police on 22 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 8432 of 2010(D)


1. ISSAC DEVASSY S/O. N.X.DEVASSY,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. INDU SATHYAN, D/O. SATHYAN,

                        Vs



1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CIRLCE INSPCTOR OF POLICE,

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. K.M.MANOJ, S/O. K.P.MANI,

5. YAMUNA SATHYAN, W/O. K.P.SATHYAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.R.VINOD

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :22/03/2010

 O R D E R
                            K. M. JOSEPH &
                    M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
              --------------------------------------------------
                  W.P(C). NO. 8432 OF 2010 D
              ---------------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 22nd March, 2010

                              JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, J.

Petitioners have approached this Court praying for a writ

of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate

police protection for the life of the petitioners from respondents

4 and 5 and their agents/henchmen/goondas.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

party respondents as also the learned Government Pleader.

3. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:

Petitioners are living as husband and wife and the second

petitioner is the daughter of the fifth respondent. There is

reference to W.P.(Crl).No.39/2010. Now, it is stated that

respondents 4 and 5 are threatening the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 would deny

the allegations and he would seek time to file Counter Affidavit.

WPC.8432/2010 D 2

But, the learned counsel respondents 4 and 5 submits that

respondents 4 and 5 have no intention to threaten or cause any

harm to the petitioners. In the light of this submission, we see

no reason why we should go into the merits of the allegations.

Without going into the merits of the allegations as such, taking

note of the facts and the submission made by the learned counsel

for the party respondents, the Writ Petition is disposed of

directing respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection to

the life of the petitioners from 4 and 5 and their men as and

when required.

Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE

Sd/=
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE
kbk.

// True Copy //
PS to Judge