IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18721 of 2010(M)
1. MOHAMMED RAFEEQ, AGED 31 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 29 YEARS,
3. RAISUDEEN, AGED 24 YEARS,
4. UMMER ROSHIL JAAN, AGED 21 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. C.I. OF POLICE,
3. S.I. OF POLICE,
4. HAMMID.C.P., AGED 36 YEARS,
5. ABOOBAKKER.C.P., AGED 50 YEARS,
6. IMTHYIAAS.C.P., S/O.ABOOBAKKER.C.P.,
7. ASHRAF.C.P., S/O.ABDULLA.C.P.,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SUDHISH
For Respondent :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :08/09/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.18721 of 2010-M
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 8th day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioners have approached this Court seeking
the following relief:
“to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order directing respondent 1 to provide
adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and
his family members against the illegal acts made by the
respondents 4 to 7 and their henchmen.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as
follows: The Ist petitioner wanted to buy 22 cents of land.
The 4th respondent as a broker and neighbor of the property
approached the Ist petitioner. Thereafter, the Ist petitioner
entered into an agreement for sale with Mr.Nazar. The Ist
petitioner came to know that they are trying to cheat him by
showing the forged sale agreement. The actual power of
attorney holder is some other person. The Ist petitioner told
the 4th respondent to give back the money and after several
talks and other person’s involvement as mediators the 4th
WPC No.18721 of 2010 -2-
respondent gave back the money. Thereafter, the Ist
petitioner purchased the property from the exact power of
attorney holder. Knowing the purchase of the said property,
the 4th respondent approached the Ist petitioner and
demanded Rs.13,000/- per cent as broker fees and threatened
him by saying that if he did not give the money he will
manhandle and he will not allow the petitioner to use the said
property. There is allegation of manhandling on 21.3.2010
and damaging of the car. Petitioners filed earlier writ
petition and after recording settlement the case was
withdrawn. It is stated that even after the settlement
respondents 4 to 7 attacked the Ist petitioner. Hence the writ
petition.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by
respondents 4 to 7. They would deny the allegations. It is
their case that the 5th respondent was brutally attacked and
manhandled by the petitioners and their henchmen and he
was hospitalized. The car which was driven by the 5th
respondent was also destroyed. It is stated that in order to
overcome the said act, the petitioners have come with the
WPC No.18721 of 2010 -3-
present story. It is stated that police has not registered any
crime against the petitioners on account of money power and
political influence. Hence respondent No.5 was constrained to
move a private complaint before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Kasaragode. Petitioners have filed reply
affidavit.
4. Learned Government Pleader would submit that
actually crime has been registered against respondents 6 and
7. In view of the apprehension of the petitioners and the
registration of crimes also we dispose of the writ petition as
follows:
As and when petitioners bring to the notice of 3rd
respondent any threat to their lives from respondents 4 to 7
or any of them, the 3rd respondent will look into the same and
if the complaint of threat is found to be genuine, he shall
afford adequate police protection to the lives of the petitioners
as against any threat from respondents 4 to 7 or such of them
who are found to be holding out threat to the petitioners. We
make it clear that if the matter comes up before any forum
in a lis between the parties, the said forum will proceed to
WPC No.18721 of 2010 -4-
decide the matter untrammelled by anything contained in this
judgment.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
JUDGE.
MS