Kerala High Court
Robinson vs The Director General Of Police on 24 June, 2011
Bench: R.Basant, K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13273 of 2011(H)
1. ROBINSON, S/O.THANKAYYAN NADAR,
... Petitioner
2. THANKAYYAN NADAR, R.D.MANDIRAM,
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. JOHNSON, EDIKULACHAL MELE PUTHEN VEETTIL
6. SREEJITH, SON OF JOHNSON,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
For Respondent :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :24/06/2011
O R D E R
R.BASANT &
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
WPC No.13273 of 2011
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th June, 2011
JUDGMENT
Basant, J.
The petitioners have come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 to 4 to afford police protection for the petitioner against respondents 5 and 6 against illegal, contumacious and violent acts apprehended from them.
2. The petitioners, a father and son and respondents 5 and 6 also father and son, are neighbours. There are disputes between them. Respondents 5 and 6 are allegedly involved in abkari offences. They have been proceeded against by the police. They entertain the incorrect impression that the petitioners are responsible for the police taking action against them. On account of this animosity, they are indulging in contumacious, culpable and violent acts against the petitioners. It is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to protect the petitioner.
3. Respondents 5 and 6 have entered appearance. WPC No.13273 of 2011 2 According to them, all the allegations are false. The boot is on the other leg. It is the petitioners who indulge in contumacious, culpable and violent conduct against respondents 5 and 6. Pathway to the residence of respondents 5 and 6 is said to be through the property of the petitioners. The petitioners are trying to obstruct the pathway. They want to be armed with an order of police protection only to steal a march over respondents 5 and 6 in that dispute between them. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to issue any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner. The police may be directed to afford protection to respondents 5 and 6.
4. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that against respondents 5 and 6, cases have been registered by the police. Proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. has also been initiated against respondents 5 and 6. But, at the moment, according to the police, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioners. If there be any threat, they can complain to the police and the complaint is genuine, appropriate action shall promptly be taken by the police to afford protection for the life WPC No.13273 of 2011 3 and person of the petitioners.
5. The learned Government Pleader further accepts that the police do not want to intervene the civil disputes between the parties. If they have any such dispute about right of way over a pathway, they may be relegated to the civil court to get such dispute resolved.
6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We find merit in the submission of the learned Government Pleader. We are satisfied that accepting the submission of the learned Government Pleader, this writ petition can be disposed of.
7. In the result,
a) We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if there be any threat posed to the life and person of the petitioners from respondents 5 and 6, the petitioners can complain to the police and thereafter appropriate action shall promptly be taken to afford protection to the life and person of the petitioners, if such allegations are found to be genuine.
b) In the light of the above, we are not WPC No.13273 of 2011 4 persuaded to issue any specific directions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
c) This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
sd/- R.BASANT
JUDGE
sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN
JUDGE
css/ /true copy/
P.S.TO JUDGE