Elikutty @ Lakshmi vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 7167 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

    TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.2351 OF 2021(T)


PETITIONERS:

      1        ELIKUTTY @ LAKSHMI,
               AGED 71 YEARS
               W/O. VARGHESE, MALEMUNDAYIL VEETTIL,
               NELLAPPARA KARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE,
               KURINHI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 576.

      2        SIJI
               AGED 45 YEARS
               D/O. VARGHESE, MALEMUNDAYIL VEETTIL,
               NELLAPPARA KARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE,
               KURINHI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 576.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
               SHRI.PRAVEEN S.
               SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
               SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
               SRI.DIPU JAMES
               SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
               SRI.K.V.GEORGE

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
               HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      2        THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
               POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKADU,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

      3        THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
               KOTTAYAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
               KOTTAYAM-686 002.

      4        THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
               PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 575.

      5        THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
               RAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, RAMAPURAM,
 WP(C).No.2351 OF 2021(T)     2

             KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 576.

      6      PRAKASAN
             AGED 47 YEARS
             S/O. MADHAVAN, KALLAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
             KURINHI KARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE,
             MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 576.

      7      JAYA PRAKASH
             AGED 43 YEARS
             W/O. PRAKASAN, KALLAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
             KURINHI KARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE,
             MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 576.

      8      PRADEEP
             AGED 42 YEARS
             S/O. MADHAVAN, KALLAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
             KURINHI KARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE,
             MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 576.

      9      THANKAMANI
             AGED 70 YEARS
             W/O. MADHAVAN, KALLAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
             KURINHI KARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE,
             MEENACHIL TALUK,
             KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 576.

      10     SATISH
             AGED 40 YEARS
             S/O. SUDHAKARAN, MARUTHAPADICKAL HOUSE,
             KURINHI KARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE,
             MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 576.

      11     SUDISH
             AGED 37 YEARS
             S/O. SUDHAKARAN, MARUTHAPADICKAL HOUSE,
             KURINHI KARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE,
             MEENACHIL TALUK,
             KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 576.

      12     SYAMALA
             AGED 60 YEARS
             S/O. SUDHAKARAN, MARUTHAPADICKAL HOUSE,
             KURINHI KARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE,
             MEENACHIL TALUK,
             KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 576.

             R6-11 BY ADV. SRI.B.BALA PRASANNAN
             R6-11 BY ADV. SHRI.PIOUS RAMAPURAM
 WP(C).No.2351 OF 2021(T)     3




             SRI PP THAJUDEEN GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.2351 OF 2021(T)            4


                                JUDGMENT

The 2nd petitioner is the daughter of the 1st petitioner. The party

respondents are their neighbours. The petitioners contend that there are

disputes between the petitioners as well as the party respondents. On

24.2.2019, the 1st petitioner lodged Ext.P1 complaint before the police

alleging that the respondent No.6 and his wife Jaya have been threatening

and intimidating them. However, no action was taken. Later, they are

stated to have filed Ext.P2 complaint before the 3rd respondent, but the

same did not evoke any action. Later, they followed up the earlier

complaints by filing Exts.P3, P4, P5, P7, P9, P10 and P11 complaints before

the police. According to the petitioners, though two crimes were registered,

no worthwhile action was taken. It is in the afore circumstances that the

petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent Nos.2

and 3 to conduct further investigation in Crime Nos.45 of 2019 and 314 of

2019 of the Ramapuram Police Station; for a direction commanding the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 to conduct proper investigation into Exts.P9 to P11

complaints; for a direction to the 5th respondent not to harass the

petitioners at the instance of respondent Nos.6 to 12 and for a further

direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to provide effective protection to the life

and property of the petitioners from respondent Nos.5 to 12 and their men.

2. Sri. George Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not pressing for relief Nos.(i)

to (iii) and is limiting his prayer for a direction to the police to afford

protection to the petitioners. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner is a lady

aged 71 years and the 2nd petitioner is her daughter. They are at the

mercy of the party respondents who wield great influence in the area. The

learned counsel submits that two crimes have been registered at their

instance which fact itself would show that their grievance is genuine.

3. Sri. B. Bala Prasannan, the learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.6 to 11 submitted that the allegations raised against them

are not genuine. According to the learned counsel, the party respondents

have no intention to take law into their own hands or to cause any breach

of peace.

4. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government

Pleader that two crimes have been registered out of which, in one case,

final report has been laid. He points out that the police have received

information that the petitioners are running an unauthorised piggery and

this has led to some dispute with the neighbours. A complaint was received

and when the petitioners were summoned, they rushed to this Court

seeking a direction to the police not to harass the petitioners at the instance

of the party respondents. It is contended that pursuant to the interim order

passed by this Court on 29.01.2021, the Police are maintaining strict vigil to

ensure that none of the parties violate law and order.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced. The petitioners are

seeking protection for life and property from any threat or intimidation by

the party respondents. The party respondents have asserted that they have

no intention to take law into their own hands. The learned Government

Pleader has also submitted that the police are monitoring the situation and

if any complaint is received, swift action shall be taken. It also appears that

two crimes have already been registered and in one case, final report has

been laid.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances and taking note of the

age and gender of the petitioners, I direct the police to ensure that no harm

is caused to them by any of the respondents. However, it is made clear that

on the strength of the order passed by this Court, the petitioners shall not

indulge in any illegal act causing inconvenience to their neighbours. If any

activity is carried out by the petitioners in their property, it shall be in

accordance with law and not otherwise.

This Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE NS

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 24.2.2019 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 6.3.2019 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 28.3.2019 SUBMITTED BY IST PETITIONER BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 5.6.2019 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO IST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 12.2.2020 SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.153/TDR/20H1 DATED NIL ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO IST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 4.3.2020 SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER ALONG WITH LOCAL PEOPLE TO 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.54913 DATED 7.5.2020 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 6.8.2020 SUBMITTED BY IST PETITIONER BEFORE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 6.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 13.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

NIL