IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 263 of 2011(G)
1. BABU JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. JOHNY, AGED 38 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SMT.R.SUDHA
For Respondent :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :12/01/2011
O R D E R
R.BASANT &
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
WPC No.263 of 2011
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th January, 2011
JUDGMENT
Basant, J.
The petitioner has come to this Court with this
petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the
Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to oblige them to
grant police protection to the petitioner against the
culpable, violent and objectionable conduct of respondent
No.3.
2. The petitioner and respondent No.3 are
neighbours. They reside in adjacent house. Relationship
between them is strained. Earlier, the petitioner’s wife
had come to this Court with a petition for police protection
and by Ext.P3 judgment, another Bench of this Court had
passed orders, the relevant portion of which is extracted
below.
“Learned Government Pleader, on instruction,
submits that there is a case and counter case.
Be that as it may, there will be a direction to
the police to ensure that law and order is
maintained. In case, there is a request by any
of the parties to provide protection for life, the
same shall be granted at the expense of the
party requiring the same.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above”.
3. Later, the wife of the petitioner came before this
Court again to review and clarify Ext.P3 judgment. The
WPC No.263/2011 2
Bench which passed Ext.P3 judgment considered the
matter again and rejected the review petition, but made
further observations. We extract below the relevant
portion of Ext.P5 judgment.
“In the petition, the petitioner did not
specifically raise any ground pointing out
the error apparent on the face of the
judgment dated 4.12.2009 for exercising
the power to review the judgment.
Therefore, the prayer made in the review
petition is rejected. However, it is made
clear that this order will not and cannot
stand in the way of respondents 1 and 2
taking action in accordance with law
against any of the parties to the writ
petition.”
According to the petitioner, now, not the wife of the
petitioner, but the petitioner has chosen to wear the
mantle of the petitioner in this petition. The crux of the
grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of Exts.P3 and
P5, respondent No.3 is continuing to indulge in
contumacious conduct. A crime has been registered
subsequently. In these circumstances, fresh directions
may be issued, it is prayed.
4. Notice was ordered to the respondents.
Respondent No.3 has entered appearance. The prayer is
opposed by respondent No.3. Adequate safe guards have
WPC No.263/2011 3
already been made and directions issued in Exts.P3 and
P5 and it is not necessary to issue any further directions,
submits the learned counsel for the third respondent.
According to the third respondent, the boot is on the other
leg and it is the petitioner and his family members who
are indulging in objectionable and contumacious conduct.
The petition is without any merit. Sufficient directions
have already been issued in Exts.P3 and P5. No further
directions may be issued, it is prayed.
5. The learned Government Pleader, after taking
instructions, submits that Exts.P3 and P5 orders are being
scrupulously observed. The petitioner had subsequently
filed a private complaint against the third respondent
before the Magistrate. It was referred to the police for
investigation. In the investigation, the allegations were
found to be not true and the case was referred. Still later,
another crime was registered. That is Ext.P6.
Investigation was completed. Necessary action was taken
by the police and final report has already been filed. In
the perception of respondents 1 and 2, there is no threat
to the safety of the petitioner now and if at all there is any
such threat, necessary action under Exts.P3 and P5 can
WPC No.263/2011 4
and shall be taken. No further directions are necessary,
submits the learned Government Pleader.
6. We have considered all the relevant
circumstances. We are of the opinion that sufficient
specific directions have already been issued in Exts.P3
and P5. We record the submission of the third respondent
that the third respondent shall not in any way indulge in
contumacious conduct against the petitioner or his wife.
We record the submission of the learned Government
Pleader that if there is any request in terms of Exts.P3
and P5, necessary action shall be taken by the police. In
these circumstances, we are satisfied that it is not
necessary to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution to arm the petitioner with any further
orders. This writ petition is in these circumstances
dismissed.
R.BASANT
JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN
JUDGE
css/