High Court Kerala High Court

Indira Bhai vs District Superintendent Of … on 29 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
Indira Bhai vs District Superintendent Of … on 29 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 18281 of 2010(I)


1. INDIRA BHAI, W/O.SREEKANDAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. SAJI THANKAPPAN,

4. BALAKRISHNAN, PUTHEN VEEDU,

5. ANUJI @ MANI,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.P.PRADEEP

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :29/06/2010

 O R D E R
                           K. M. JOSEPH &
                    M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
              --------------------------------------------------
                  W.P(C). NO. 18281 OF 2010 I
              ---------------------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 29th June, 2010

                              JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fifth

respondent is unserved. He would submit that the petitioner

does not press any relief against the fifth respondent. We record

the submission.

2. Respondents 3 and 4 filed a Counter Affidavit denying

the allegations. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 would

submit that actually the son-in-law of the petitioner has issued

cheques and they were dishonoured. He would further submit

that respondents 3 and 4 have no intention to cause any threat to

the life of the petitioner. In view of the apprehension of the

petitioner, besides recording the submission of the learned

counsel for respondents 3 and 4, we direct that in case any

instance of threat on the life of the petitioner by respondents 3

WPC.18281/2010 I 2

and 4 is brought to the notice of the second respondent, the

second respondent will afford protection to the life of the

petitioner as against any threat by respondents 3 and 4. We

make it clear that we have not pronounced on the correctness of

the allegations made against the petitioner by respondents 3 and

4.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/=

K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE

Sd/=
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE
kbk.