IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31142 of 2010(P)
1. SUBRAMANIAN, RESIDING AT
... Petitioner
2. DILEEP SUBRAMANIAN, RESIDING AT
Vs
1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. JERRY DECRU'Z, RESIDING AT CC.18/120,
4. JEFFRIN DECRU'Z, RESIDING AT CC.18/120,
5. LINCY, W/O.JEFFRIN,RESIDING AT CC.18/120
6. MAJI DECRU'Z, W/O.JERRY DECRU'Z,
For Petitioner :SRI.BASIL JOY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :15/10/2010
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH &
M. C. HARI RANI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO. 31142 OF 2010 P
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th October, 2010.
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following
relief:
“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction compelling
respondents 1 and 2 to render adequate and sufficient
police protection to the life of the petitioners from the
atrocities and threats of respondents 3 to 6.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioners are conducting a saw mill near Pulimoottu Bridge,
Palluruthy. Respondents 3 to 6 are residing very near to the saw
mill. Under the influence of other saw mill owners very near to it,
from the beginning of starting of the saw mill by the petitioners,
false complaints have been lodged. But, the Authorities have not
WPC.NO.31142/2010 P 2
found any truth upon these complaints. Later, the fifth respondent,
a lady was asked to file false complaint and to pressurise the
petitioners to withdraw the complaints pending against her
husband and father-in-law in Magistrate Courts. It is alleged that
respondents 3 to 6 have filed false complaint against the petitioners
before different Authorities. But, nobody found any guilt upon
these persons. It is alleged that respondents 3 to 6 are threatening
the petitioners saying that they will file complaints against the
petitioners by using the fifth respondent. Petitioners are afraid that
the fifth respondent may misuse her status as a lady to harm the
reputation of the petitioners by filing false complaints.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader
submits on instructions that there is no threat as such to the life of
the petitioners. Several complaints have been lodged against the
first petitioner by the party respondents.
4. We do not see how we can be persuaded to issue a
WPC.NO.31142/2010 P 3
direction to give police protection on the ground that complaints
have been filed against the petitioners. If false complaints are
being filed, the petitioners have remedies available in law.
Without prejudice to any of the remedies available to the
petitioners in law and further directing that if any complaint is filed
by the petitioners disclosing commission of any cognizable offence
by the party respondents, action in accordance with law shall be
taken.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
Sd/=
M.C. HARI RANI,
JUDGE
kbk.
WPC.NO.31142/2010 P 4