IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32578 of 2008(C)
1. SURESH.R, S/O.M.K.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTTARAKARA
... Respondent
2. THULASEEDHARAN PILLA, DIVYA BHAVANAM,
3. DEEPU, S/O.THULASEEDHARAN PILLA,
For Petitioner :SRI.DILIP MOHAN
For Respondent :SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :26/11/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.32578 OF 2008 C
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner is a money lender, running a firm called
Muttathu Financiers. The 2nd respondent availed a loan from him.
Though, he paid a portion of the amount, substantial amounts
are still remaining unpaid. When the petitioner asked repayment
of the balance amount, the 2nd respondent along with his son,
who is the 3rd respondent herein came to his office, abused and
threatened him. The 3rd respondent poured petrol on him and
the 2nd respondent lighted a match to set fire to him. Fortunately,
the petitioner’s father intervened and the lighted match was
snatched away by him. The petitioner got himself admitted in
the nearby hospital and based on the intimation given from the
hospital, the police registered a crime against respondents 2 and
3 under sections 452 and 308 of Indian Penal Code. So far the
accused have not been arrested. The petitioner pointed out to
the police, the residence of respondents 2 and 3. For that they
W.P.(C)No.32578/08 -2-
are now telephoning and threatening him. The petitioner
apprehends they may, at any time, attack him again. Therefore,
he preferred Exhibit P2 representation before the first
respondent. But, the said respondent did not take any effective
action. Hence this Writ Petition.
2. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit.
According to them, no amount is due from the 2nd respondent to
the petitioner, even though he is claiming further amounts using
the two blank cheques issued by the 2nd respondent. When they
went to inquire about this, they were threatened by the petitioner
using a gun. Apprehending that respondents 2 and 3 may
complain about it to the police, a false case of pouring petrol, etc.
was foisted on them. In fact, they are living under mortal fear of
the police and the petitioner, it is submitted. They deny the
allegations of causing any threat to the life of the petitioner.
3. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions
submitted that a crime has been registered against respondents 2
and 3 and the allegation of the petitioner appears to be correct.
But, the culprits could not be arrested as they have gone
W.P.(C)No.32578/08 -3-
underground.
4. If there is any threat to the life of the petitioner from
the part of respondents 2 and 3, he may inform the first
respondent. In that event, the first respondent shall take
necessary action, as the occasion demands, to protect the life of
the petitioner,.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn