Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013 3RD MAGHA 193 WP(C).No. 787 of 2013 (W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. MRS.ELIZABETH SAJI, AGED 4 YEARS, W/O. SAJI K.CHERIYAN,THAMARASSERIL HOUSE, EDAPPALLY P.O.,KOCHI-24.
2. SAJI. K.CHERIAN, AGED 4 YEARS, S/O. LATE K.C.CHERIYAN,THAMARASSERIL HOUSE, EDAPPALLY P.O.,KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.LALGI P.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUANANTHAPURAM ”
001.
2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM ”
031.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA,ERNAKULAM ”
030.
4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY,ERNAKULAM.
5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM - 682028.
6. MURALEEDHARAN C.M., S/O. K.K.MADHAVAN,THODUVAKKARA HOUSE,VENNALA P.O., KOCHI-682028.
7. A.H.KURIAN JOB, S/O. HA,ADAPPILLY HOUSE,ALUVA WEST, ERNAKULAM - 687006. WP(C).No. 787 of 2013 (W) 8. SUBI MURALEEDHARAN, W/O. C.M.MURALEEDHARAN,THODUVAKKARA HOUSE, VENNALA P.O.,KOCHI-682028. R1 TO R5 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI M K ABOOBACKER R6 TO R8 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 787 of 2013 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT OF PETITION ISSUED BY PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION DATED 21 11-2012. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DATED 12 12- 2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE LSN K.M. JOSEPH & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------------- W.P (c) No. 787 OF 201.------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 JUDGMENT
Joseph, J: Petitioners approach this court for the following relief: "Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 2 to 5 to afford sufficient protection to the life and property of the petitioner." 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners as follows: Petitioners are conducting a medical shop. Due to their financial crisis the 1st petitioner borrowed some amount from the 8th respondent since who is a money lender on the basis of high interest rate. There are so many people in the locality are victimized by the hands of the 8th respondent who is a lady dealing with money transaction, without any licence. The 1st petitioner was regularly paying the high interest demanded by the 8th respondent and the 1st petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,54,000/- to the 8th W.P.(C) No.787/2013 -2- respondent on the basis of interest alone within a period of one year. The rate of interest known by the 8th respondent alone. Due to the harassment by 8th respondent the 1st petitioner faced a lot of problems and to get over from the troubles the 1st petitioner filed a petition before the police. But no actions have been taken by the police to stop the harassment by respondents 6 to 8. Hence this writ petition is filed.
3. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents 6 to 8 besides learned Government Pleader.
4. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 6 to 8. Learned counsel for the party respondents would submit that some amount is due from the petitioners. They will take only legal steps and there will be no threat to the petitioner, it is submitted. Learned Government pleader would submit that on receipt of complaint the police called the parties and warned the respondent. No crime is registered. We record the submission. We further direct that in case the W.P.(C) No.787/2013 -3- petitioners complains to the 5th respondent of any threat to their lives from the party respondents he will look into it and if it is found genuine only he will afford protection to the lives of the petitioners as against respondents 6 to 8 as and when required. We further direct that when the matter comes before the court, the court is free to decide the matter untrammeled by anything contained in this judgment. Sd/- K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge