Kerala High Court
Sivasanakara Pillai vs The District Police Chief on 6 June, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 19806 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SIVASANAKARA PILLAI
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O GOPALA PILLAI KIZHAKEDATHU VEEDU VAYKKAL.P.O,
VALAKOM VILLAGE KOTTARAKARA TALUK,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691532
BY ADVS.
SAYUJYA
K.R.RAJEEV KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
ASHRAMAM ROAD, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001.
2 DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001.
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691571.
4 SABEER.S
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O SAINULABDEEN S.A. MANZIL,
PARAKUNNU NAVAIKKULAM TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695603.
BY ADVS.
G.RANJU MOHAN
M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)(K/000868/2011)
THEERTHA NAIR A.P.(K/003889/2023)
SREEHARI M.B.(K/001881/2020)
DEV NATH A.(K/3337/2022)
PYARIN B. KURUVITHADAM(K/000529/2023)
SMT.REKHA C.NAIR, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.19806/2024
..2..
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
=========================
W.P.(C)No.19806 of 2024
==========================
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner makes scathing allegations against the 4 th
respondent; and says that he is inimical to him because there are
disputes between them with respect to a purchase of a Factory.
He says that, even though the sale did not materialise, there are
civil cases between them, including under the provisions of the
Negotiable Instruments Act; and that the 4 th respondent, with the
intent of coercing him to accede to his usurious demands, is now
threatening and intimidating him using his henchmen. He
asserts that the 4th respondent is a very influential and affluent
person, who has connections in "high places" and therefore, that
he fears for the lives of his family and himself. He says that he
has, therefore, preferred Exts.P1 and P2 representations before
the 2nd and 3rd respondents, but that no action has been taken
thereon to offer him protection; thus constraining him to
approach this Court through this writ petition.
2. However, the afore submissions of Smt.Sayujya
Radhakrishnan - learned counsel for the petitioner, were
..3..
vehemently opposed by Sri.G.Renju Mohan - learned counsel for
the 4th respondent, saying that his client has never and do not
intend, to cause any threat or intimidation to the petitioner,
much less attack or unleash violence; and that he does not
require to do so because, he has invoked legal remedies against
him, as he is entitled. He submitted that the disputes between
the parties are relating to several issues involving large amounts
of money and therefore, that the attempt of the petitioner
appears to be to scuttle his legal remedies, by making a pre-
emptive effort of approaching this Court and obtaining orders.
3. Smt.Rekha C.Nair - learned Senior Government
Pleader, affirmed that the Police have understood that the
parties have several disputes between themselves, relating to
contractual arrangements and such other. She submitted that
the Police cannot intervene into the same, but are ensuring,
adverting to Exts.P1 and P2 complaints, that the lives of the
petitioner, as well as that of the 4 th respondent, are adequately
protected against each other. She added that the Police are also
keeping a vigil to ensure that there is no law and order issue.
4. I have to say that the afore stand of the Police is the
most apposite in the given circumstances because, they can
never intervene in the civil disputes between the parties,
..4..
particularly when litigations are pending. However, they are
enjoined in law - as in the case of any other citizen - to protect
the lives of the petitioner and the 4 th respondent and to ensure
that their disputes do not degenerate into a law and order issue.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition,
recording the afore submissions of Sri.G.Renju Mohan; with a
consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to ensure that the
lives of the petitioner and that of the 4 th respondent are
protected against each other and that they do not commit any
action in violation of law.
As far as the parties are concerned, their rights before the
competent Courts/Forums, as also their contentions in such
regard, are fully left open, without being decided in any manner
in this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ACR
..5..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19806/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.
27.05.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 3 RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT
OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT
DT.29.05.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2 ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD
