Jayesh vs The Director General Of Police ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13523 Ker

WP(C) NO. 30587 OF 2019        1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
    THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 30587 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:

          JAYESH
          AGED 35 YEARS
          S/O.JOGESH,RESIDING AT PALAZHI,
          KUNNATHUKAVU,ERAVIPURAM.P.O,
          KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-691011.

          BY ADV V.A.AJIVAS



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (D.G.P)
          POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN-695036.

    2     THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,
          KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691008.

    3     THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
          EZHAVIPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691011.

    4     THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
          EZHAVIPURAM POLICE STATION,
          KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691011.



          SMT.A.C.VIDHYA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 30587 OF 2019              2

                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that after working for a considerable period in the

Gulf, he had returned back to India. He states that he was running a

partnership business in the name and style as "Dot Engineering" in the United

Arab Emirates. For the conduct of the business, the petitioner and his partners

had to borrow money from one John, Sanath, a certain Balakrishnan and

Imthias Muhammed. They are stated to be private money lenders in the United

Arab Emirates. However, due to a crunch in their finances, the firm was not

able to repay the amount borrowed. The petitioner later returned back to India.

His grievance is that the money lenders used to call the petitioner over mobile

phone and threaten him. He further states that on 27.10.2019, one John, from

whom he had borrowed money, along with four others, trespassed into his

residential home and threatened him. In the said circumstances, he lodged

Exhibit-P1 complaint before the 4th respondent naming the above four persons

and four other persons, who could be identified at sight. When no action was

taken, he approached this Court and filed this writ petition seeking directions to

respondent Nos.1 to 4 to afford adequate protection to the life and property of

the petitioner and his family members.

2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the

petitioner has named four persons in Ext.P1 complaint, but those persons have

not been arrayed as respondents in the writ petition. It is further submitted

that, on enquiry, it was revealed that the four persons named in the complaint

are working overseas. According to the learned Government Pleader, though

various allegations are levelled by the petitioner, the petitioner has not been

able to produce any materials to substantiate the same.

3. I have considered the submissions advanced.

4. The petitioner has failed to even array the respondents in Exhibit-

P1 complaint in the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader on

instructions submits that those people are not even in India. In that view of

the matter, there appears to be no merit in the assertions made by the

petitioner.

This writ petition will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE NS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30587/2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.10.2019 AND ITS RECEIPT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1 TO 4TH RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS    :

                           NIL