IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35472 of 2009(D)
1. RAJESH S NAIR, THIRD FLOOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CITY COMMISSIONER POLICE,
... Respondent
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THEVARA.
4. HASHIR.K.R,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.SASITH
For Respondent :SRI.K.R.SUNIL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :24/02/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P(C). NO. 35472 OF 2009 D
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th February, 2010
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
Petitioner seeks protection for his life and property from
the fourth respondent. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is
as follows:
Petitioner is a renowned film producer, now residing at
Kochu Kadavanthra. After the petitioner’s marriage on
28.3.2009, he along with his wife is residing at a Flat near South
Janatha Road. Fourth respondent is stated to be a Government
contractor and he had some money transactions with the
petitioner’s wife. He is alleged to have borrowed Rs.4 Lakhs
from the petitioner’s wife. When repayment was demanded by
the petitioner, he was warned with dire consequences by the
fourth respondent. There is allegation made of an incident on
2.4.2009. It is also stated that there was attack by the fourth
respondent in July, 2009. Other allegation of attack by the
WPC.35472/09 D 2
fourth respondent is also made in connection with the
petitioner’s business “Karvy Shares”. The further allegation is
that the fourth respondent created a web site in the name of the
petitioner, where obscene photo of a Malayalam actress is
displayed.
2. A Counter Affidavit is filed by the fourth respondent.
Therein, the petitioner is described as an anti-social running
around, pretending as a film producer. It is stated that the fourth
respondent has filed Ext.R4(a) complaint.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and also the learned
Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent
submits that the fourth respondent is not having any intention to
cause any harm to the petitioner. We record this submission and
direct that in case of any request by the petitioner, respondents 1
to 3 will afford adequate and sufficient police protection for the
life of the petitioner from the fourth respondent. As far as
Ext.R4(a) complaint is concerned, it is for the fourth respondent
to pursue the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that
WPC.35472/09 D 3
this Judgment will not stand in the way of the police
investigating any case registered against the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
Sd/=
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge