IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 35517 of 2010(L) 1. D.SAJEEV, S/O.DAMODARAN, AGED 55 ... Petitioner 2. REMANI, W/O. D.SAJEEV, AGED 48 Vs 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ... Respondent 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE 5. SASEENDRABABU, SANDYA BHAVAN For Petitioner :SRI.K.R.SUNIL For Respondent :SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI Dated :17/12/2010 O R D E R K.M. JOSEPH & M. C. HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO. 35517 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th December, 2010. JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following
relief:
“Issue a writ of mandamus compelling the 1st,
2nd, 3rd and the 4th respondents to grant adequate
and effective police protection to the life and
properties of the petitioners.”
2. Petitioners are husband and wife. Allegation is against the
fifth respondent. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and also the
learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the fifth
2
respondent would submit that actually the second petitioner owes
money to the mother-in-law of the fifth respondent and a demand
was made for return of the amount and that is all what has
happened and there is no threat to the life of the petitioners and
that the fifth respondent does not intend to threaten the life of the
petitioners. He woud also submit that only legal steps will be
taken for recovery of the amount. We record the said submissions
and we direct that in the unlikely event of the petitioners being
constrained to complain before the second respondent of any threat
to their life from the fifth respondent, the second responsdent will
look into it and if the threat is found to be genuine, he shall give
protection to the life of the petitioners as against the fifth
respondent. We make it clear that we have not pronounced on the
merits of the claim and if the matter comes up before the competent
civil court, the said court will proceed to decide the matter
3
untrammeled by any observation contained in this Judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
Sd/=
M.C. HARI RANI,
JUDGE
kbk.
//True Copy//
PS to Judge