IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11827 of 2008(G)
1. VISHALAKSHY, AGED 75 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL),
... Respondent
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. A.S.I. OF POLICE,
5. DAYANANDHAN (RETIRED SUB REGISTRAR),
6. SYRRUS (RETIRED TAHSILDAR),
7. VISWANATHAN (RETD. FROM TALUK OFFICE),
8. ALBY, MAREEJAM CODE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SIVARAJ
For Respondent :SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :15/10/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.11827 of 2008-G
-------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 15th day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
A.K.Basheer, J.
Petitioner, who is stated to be a 75 year old lady seeks the
intervention of this Court and issue a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to
provide adequate and effective protection to her and her family members
in order to enable her and the family to reside peacefully in their
residence.
2. We have carefully perused the averments made in the
writ petition and also the statement filed by the Sub Inspector of Police,
Parassala Police Station. It is revealed from the statement that a crime
was registered by the Police against the petitioner on the basis of a
complaint lodged by respondent No.5 alleging commission of offence
punishable under Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34 IPC. The
Police has completed the investigation and charge sheet has been laid
before the competent Magistrate.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents No.5 he has
specifically averred that this petition is nothing but an abuse of the
W.P.C. No.11827/2008 -2-
process. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has filed this
writ petition as a counter blast to the crime registered against her.
4. We do not find any reasonable ground to issue any
direction as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition. However,
since the petitioner has reportedly submitted Ext.P1 representation before
respondent No.1, we are of the view that a direction can be issued to the
said respondent to take appropriate decision on the same in accordance
with law, if the same has been received. We do so.
The Writ Petition is closed with the above terms.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
MS