IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 38783 of 2010(W)
1. AMINA, W/O.ABDUL RAHIM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. CHANDRABABU, S/O.KOCHUKRISHNAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.VINOD J.DEV
For Respondent :SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :21/01/2011
O R D E R
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
—————————————————-
W.P.(Civil) No.38783 of 2010
—————————————————-
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011
Judgment
Basant, J.
The petitioner has come to this court with this writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of directions to
respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to her to prevent
violent, contumacious and culpable conduct on the part of the 4th
respondent directed against her.
2. According to the petitioner, there was an earlier financial
transaction between her and the 4th respondent. According to
her, she has completely discharged the liability. The 4th
respondent is still attempting to stake false claims against her.
He is trying to get some documents which are available with her.
The 4th respondent comes to the house of the petitioner and
unnecessarily harasses her. Police protection may be afforded to
her to live in peace in her house without any threat or violence
against her by the 4th respondent. This, in short, is the prayer.
WPC 38783/2010 2
3. Notice was ordered. All the respondents have entered
appearance. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The
4th respondent takes the stand that the allegations are false.
There is an agreement between the 4th respondent on the one
hand and the petitioner and her husband on the other. That
agreement is for sale for immovable property. Substantial
amounts has been paid by way of advance also. The 4th
respondent is willing to pay the balance amount but the
petitioner and her husband are not complying with the terms of
the said agreement. In connection with the civil dispute, it is true
that the 4th respondent had occasion to go to the house of the
petitioner. According to the 4th respondent, the petitioner and her
husband took time to settle the issue. But they have not acted in
compliance of the undertakings given by them. In these
circumstances, the 4th respondent was constrained to approach
the civil court and O.S.No.656 of 2010 has been filed before the
Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kollam for specific performance of the
said agreement for sale of immovable property.
4. The 4th respondent asserts that he has no intention to go
WPC 38783/2010 3
to the house of the petitioner now. Earlier he had gone only for
an attempt to settle the dispute between the parties. He
undertakes that the suit having been filed and legal remedy
having been claimed through the civil court, he does not want to
and shall not go to the house of the petitioner or cause any
harassment or vexation to her. The 4th respondent is prepared to
wait for relief to be granted to him by the civil court. This
undertaking may be recorded. There is no necessity to afford any
police protection for the petitioner, submits the learned counsel
for the 4th respondent.
5. The learned Government Pleader submits that at the
moment and after the issue of the interim orders by this court in
this writ petition, there is no threat or risk against the life and
person of the petitioner. Parties are already before the civil court.
The 4th respondent’s undertaking that he shall not go to the
house of the petitioner can be accepted. If there is any conduct
inconsistent and conflict with the said undertaking, respondents
1 to 3 shall take necessary actions, submits the learned
Government Pleader.
WPC 38783/2010 4
6. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no further
specific directions are necessary. We accept the undertaking of
the 4th respondent. We also accept the undertaking of the
learned Government Pleader. This writ petition is, in these
circumstances, allowed in part to the above extent.
R.BASANT, JUDGE.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
srd