Sarakutty Scaria vs The Superintendent Of Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 2940 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1944
                     WP(C) NO. 28990 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

    1     SARAKUTTY SCARIA
          AGED 76 YEARS, W/O. SCARIA,
          CHEERAKKATTIL HOUSE,
          VELIYANADU P.O,
          ARAKKUNNAM (VIA),
          ERNAKULAM-682313.

    2     JIBU SCARIA,
          AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. SCARIA,
          CHEERAKKATTIL HOUSE,
          VELIYANADU P.O, ARAKKUNNAM (VIA),
          ERNAKULAM-682313.

          BY ADV RESMI NANDANAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL)
          OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL),
          ERNAKULAM-688524.

    2     THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
          MULAMTHURUTHY POLICE STATION,
          MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM -682314.

    3     THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
          MULAMTHURUTHY POLICE STATION,
          MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM- 682 314.

    4     JINSE GEORGE,
          AGED 40 YEARS
          S/O.GEORGE, CHEERAKKATTIL HOUSE,
          VELIYANADU P.O, ARAKKUNNAM (VIA),
          ERNAKULAM-682313.
 W.P.(C) No.28990 of 2022

                             2


    5    P.V.SRENDRAN
         FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN,
         PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, VELIYANADU P.O.,
         ARAKUNNAM (VIA), ERNAKULAM-682313.

         BY ADVS.
         E.C.BINEESH, GP.
         C.P.PEETHAMBARAN


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.28990 of 2022

                                   3




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of March, 2023

The petitioners are before this Court seeking police

protection from the threat of respondents 4 and 5.

2. The petitioners allege that the 4th respondent is a

relative of the petitioners and the 5th respondent is the friend of the

4th respondent. Respondents 4 and 5 are creating problems and

threatening the petitioners and the wife and minor children of the

2nd petitioner. Though complaint is given to the 3rd respondent, he

is not taking any action. Taking advantage of this situation,

respondents 4 and 5 are causing damage to the property of the

petitioners and are threatening the petitioners.

3. Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the 4 th

respondent. The 4th respondent submitted that there is a dispute in

respect of a property based on a Will. In respect of the dispute

between the parties, the Tahsildar, Kanayannur had conducted a W.P.(C) No.28990 of 2022

hearing. The 4th respondent consented for cancelling the

Thandaper. The 4th respondent requested for earmarking the

property allotted to each shares in the Will. The 4th respondent, in

fact, wants to settle the issue peacefully and amicably.

3. The 4th respondent further submitted that the 4 th

respondent has not caused any threat to the petitioners nor does

he intend to cause any threat in future.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and

the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.

5. From the pleadings and arguments, it is evident that

basically, the dispute between the petitioners and the 4 th

respondent is a property dispute. The petitioners and the 4 th

respondent are relatives.

6. The petitioners would allege that respondents 4 and 5

are causing grave threat to the petitioners. They are creating

problems and threatening the petitioners and other family

members.

W.P.(C) No.28990 of 2022

7. The 4th respondent would, however, submit that the 4th

respondent wants a peaceful resolution of the disputes between

the parties. The 4th respondent is not causing any threat to the

petitioners nor does he intend to cause any threats in future.

In view of the submission made on behalf of the 4 th

respondent, I am of the opinion that no further mandatory orders

are required in this writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of

recording the submission made on behalf of the 4 th respondent.

However, if there is any further threat faced by the petitioners, the

petitioners will be at liberty to approach the 3 rd respondent, who

shall act in accordance with law.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams W.P.(C) No.28990 of 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28990/2022

PETITIONERS'EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 29.10.2021 IN WP(C) NO.31020/2019. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.5.2022 ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR, KANAYANNOOR. Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 1.6.22 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S OFFICE. Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.6.22.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16/05/2018 OF THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT Exhibit R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11/08/2018 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26/07/2021 OF THE RTO, ERNAKULAM TO THE RTO, KOTTAYAM Exhibit R4(d) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 07/08/2017 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, EDAKKATUVAYAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH Exhibit R4(e) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 03/01/2018 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY, EDAKKATUVAYAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH