IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4735 of 2010(N)
1. ABIDA BEEVI,W/O.ALI HASSAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUTHIKKAD
... Respondent
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. YUNS,PUTHENPARAMBIL,MANGAMKUZHI.PO,
4. SHAJI,PUTHENKULATHIL RUBBER STORES,
5. SALIM,PUTHENPARAMBIL,MANGAMKUZHI.PO,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :23/02/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 4735 of 2010 N
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a
direction to respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate and
effective police protection to the life and property of the
petitioner and her husband and to conduct an investigation into
Exts.P1 to P3 complaints and to take action thereon, in
accordance with law.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows.
Petitioner is a retired Nursing Assistant, who is residing with her
husband. Her son is working abroad. Respondents 3 to 5 are
neighbours of the petitioner. It is stated that respondents 3 to 5,
along with their henchmen, are threatening and intimidating
W.P.(C).No. 4735 of 2010
2
the petitioner and her husband and they trespassed into their property
at night and poured acid on the plants standing in the property. The
petitioner filed complaints before respondents 1 and 2. But they have
not taken any action. The petitioner approached the District Collector,
Alapuzha and filed a representation. The Deputy Collector (General),
Alapuzha forwarded Ext.P1 complaint to the second respondent for
necessary action. But so far no action was taken on Ext.P1.
3. On 2.2.2010 and 5.2.2010 respondents 3 to 5 and their
henchmen demolished the window glass and caused damage to other
house hold articles. Petitioner filed complaint before the first
respondent seeking police protection.
4. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleader.
5. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that
the petitioner and her son are accused in a crime registered under
Section 498A I.P.C. According to the learned Government Pleader,
W.P.(C).No. 4735 of 2010
3
respondents 3 to 5 are witnesses in that case and the petitioner is
under the impression that respondents 3 to 5 are behind the filing of
the complaint. He would further submit that an enquiry has been
conducted into the complaint filed by the petitioner and it is found that
there is no truth in the allegations made against respondents 3 to 5.
6. If the petitioner is aggrieved, leaving open her right to
pursue her remedy before appropriate forum under law, this Writ
Petition is disposed of.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm