Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
D.Sajeev vs The Superintendent Of Police on 17 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  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


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.090 seconds.