Sareena vs District Superintendent Of … on 10 November, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 31632 of 2009(Y)


1. SAREENA,W/O.NISAM,A.R.HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. MEERABHAI,W/O.RAHIM,HOUSE NO.5,

5. ISMAIL,S/O.ABOOBACKER,

6. SURUMI,D/O.MEERABHAI,HOUSE NO.5,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.G.P.SHINOD

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :10/11/2009

 O R D E R
         KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
            -----------------------------------------
                  W.P(C)No.31632 of 2009
            -----------------------------------------
        Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009

                            JUDGMENT

Kurian Joseph, J.

The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:-

i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,

order or direction compelling and commanding

respondent Nos.1 to 3 to give adequate and

effective police protection to the life of the

petitioner and her father and sister-in-law from

respondent Nos.4 to 6 and their henchmen.

Today the 5th respondent is present. He has married the

sister of the petitioner. It is submitted that in respect of

certain transactions between the petitioner and the 5th

respondent, the 5th respondent has instituted a complaint

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and

apart from that there is absolutely no basis for any of the

allegations in the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for

respondents 4 to 6 submits that they have not in any way

caused any threat to the life of the petitioner or other

members of the family and they have no intention to do so.

W.P(C)No.31632 of 2009
-:2:-

The above submissions are recorded. In the unlikely event of

any such conduct on the part of respondents 4 to 6 or their

henchmen, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the

second respondent, in which case the second respondent will

take appropriate action in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)

(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
ahg.

KURIAN JOSEPH &
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.

—————————

W.P(C)No.31632 of 2009

—————————-

JUDGMENT

10th November, 2009