IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25354 of 2010(T)
1. VIJAYAN PILLAI,T.G.CHELKKOTTU VEETTIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI,PUTHAN VILAYIL,
3. HARI,PUTHAN VILAYIL,VARENICKAL,
4. SREEJITH,SREEMANGALATH,
5. ANANTHAKRISHNAN NAIR,SUB INSPECTOR OF
6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :24/11/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.25354 of 2010-T
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 24th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
“i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or
order directing the Ist and 6th respondent to provide
adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner
and his family from the illegal acts of the respondents 2
to 5.
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or
order directing the 6th respondent to complete the
reinvestigation of crime No.45/08 and 158/08of
Kurathikad Police station within stipulated time.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as
follows: Petitioner was employed in KSEB. Respondents 2 to
4 along with some others attacked the petitioner and his wife.
He was brutally beaten up before his wife and his 11 year old
son. A crime is registered. Respondents 2 to 4 have criminal
records. Various allegations are raised. Petitioner filed
petition. Enquiries have been made. The 6th respondent
police officer is aiding the other party respondents.
WPC 25354/2010 -2-
3. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 2 to
4 and also by the 5th respondent.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Learned Government Pleader submits that crimes have been
registered against respondents 2 to 4. In view of the context,
we dispose of the writ petition as follows.
If the petitioner complains of any threat to his life
by respondents 2 to 4 before the 6th respondent, the 6th
respondent will look into the same and if the threat is found to
be genuine, the 6th respondent shall provide adequate
protection for the life of the petitioner as against respondents
2 to 4. We make it clear that this judgment will not stand in
the way of the Court considering the matter.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.C.HARI RANI)
JUDGE.
MS