Kerala High Court
Adv. Deepa K Francis vs State Of Kerala on 11 March, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:20257
WP(C) NO. 27219 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 27219 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ADV. DEEPA K FRANCIS
AGED 43 YEARS
MADATHIL (H) PADINJAREKA P. 0 VALLAKOM, VAIKOM,
KOTTAYAM DIST, PIN - 686146
BY ADV ADV. DEEPA K FRANCIS(Party-In-Person)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
& STATE POLICE CHIEF, STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS
VACHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN-,
PIN - 695010
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
P9XR+ QJV, WGATE VAIKOM' KOTHANALLOOR, VAIKOM RD,
KOTTAYAN, PIN - 686141
4 ADV. VARGHESE C KURIAKOSE
CHAKKALAYIL ,BUILDING NO.2625B, AMULYA STREET,1ST
PLOT, NEAR MADHAVA PHARMACY JN, EMAKULAM KOCHI,
PIN - 682018
5 JOSEPH
USA, NY, 14580 WEBSTER TWINLEFTER, PIN - 1140
2025:KER:20257
WP(C) NO. 27219 OF 2024
2
6 ANNIE (NISHA)
W/OSIROSHKAPPAN 78 SKYLINE TEMPLETON, MANIKATH
ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682016
7 BERNADETTE ALIAS LNDU
W/O JOSE PANDARAKAPPIL PANDARAKAPPIL (H)
MUTTUCHIRA P.O. KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686613
8 ROSALINE ALIAS NIJA
W/O PETER MATHEW THEKANADY, C2 EXPRESS TOWERS
KOCHI- 17, PIN - 682017
9 SECRETARY OF PANCHAYAT
UDAYANAPURAMPANCHAYAT VALLAKOM, VAIKOM, PIN -
686146
BY ADVS.
M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN
S.RAJMOHAN
ALEENA MARIA JOSE(K/000520/2017)
M.ARDRA KRISHNAN(K/000990/2017)
AADITYA NAIR(K/000952/2017)
DIYA MERIN BIJU(K/001085/2023)
SOHAN VARGHESE FRANCIS(K/1360/2024)
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. AJITH VISWANATHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 5.03.2025, THE COURT ON 11.03.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:20257
WP(C) NO. 27219 OF 2024
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
===========================
W.P (C )No.27219 of 2024
===========================
Dated this the 11th March, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner's family had inherited 74 cents of property
from their maternal grandfather. In 2012, the petitioner's father
had engaged the 4th respondent as his Counsel to contest a
property suit, but his services were stopped in 2019. The 4 th
respondent had filed several cases for the petitioner's father, by
exploiting his ignorance. The 4th respondent had suppressed
the fact that the marumakkathayam law was abolished in 1975.
The 4th respondent had grabbed a huge sum of money from the
petitioner's father. At present, the property is in the petitioner's
brother's name. The petitioner's uncle has engaged the 4 th
respondent to evict the petitioner and her family from the
property. The petitioner and her siblings are receiving phone
calls and WhatsApp messages. Their phones are tapped.
People have stopped calling and chatting with the petitioner and
2025:KER:20257
WP(C) NO. 27219 OF 2024
her family members. When the petitioner and her siblings go
out, persons are following them. Due to the stalking and the
influence of the 4th respondent, no Advocate is prepared to
contest their property suit. On 26.11.2023, the petitioner's
neighbour lifted his dhoti and insulted her. The petitioner's
neighbours have threatened to kill the petitioner and her siblings
by hitting them with a lorry. The petitioner has installed 22
CCTV cameras on her property. But there are areas that are not
covered by the CCTV cameras. Therefore, the 4 th respondent's
'quotation team' (henchmen) cannot be identified in the CCTV
footage. There are two water tanks in the petitioner's house.
Every night, the henchmen spray poisonous chemicals in the
water tanks, which is causing skin problems, hair loss and
gastric problems to the petitioner. The petitioner has seven pet
dogs, who are also suffering from fatigue and drowsiness due to
poisonous gas. The petitioner and her family are suffering
physical, mental and economic loss. The water supplied by the
water authority is also mixed with chemicals. 0n the midnight of
2025:KER:20257
WP(C) NO. 27219 OF 2024
5. 8. 2023, while the petitioner was standing on her veranda,
the henchmen sprayed poisonous gas in her house. The
petitioner's cultivations have dried up, and her chickens and calf
have died. Even though the petitioner has complained about the
incidents to the Vaikom police, they have not responded. The
4th respondent intends to grab the petitioner's property. The
petitioner's life and property are under serious threat at the
hands of respondents No. 4 to 8 and their henchmen. The
petitioner is facing relentless problems and cannot live a
peaceful life due to the unlawful activities of respondents 4 to 8.
Ext.P1 complaint submitted by the petitioner is still pending
consideration before the respondents 1 to 3. Hence, the writ
petition.
2. In compliance with the directions of this Court, the 3 rd
respondent has filed a statement stating that the District Police
Chief, Kottayam, had forwarded the petitioner's complaint to the
Vaikom Police Station for enquiry. As a part of the enquiry, the
petitioner's statement was recorded and her house was
2025:KER:20257
WP(C) NO. 27219 OF 2024
inspected. It was found that the petitioner has installed CCTV
cameras around her house, and she has seven dogs to ensure
that no one enters her house. The CCTV footage does not
show that anyone had trespassed into the petitioner's house, as
alleged. There is no chance for anyone to spray poisonous
chemicals on the bodies of dogs or in the water tank. The
petitioner could have got the water samples tested in the
laboratory to check the presence of toxic substances, which she
has not done. She has also not taken the dogs for medical
treatment. On questioning the petitioner's neighbours, they
have stated that the petitioner was unnecessarily picking up
quarrels with them for no reason. The enquiry has revealed no
threat or intimidation to the petitioner from respondents 4 to 8.
The petitioner's house is near the Vaikom Police Station. If
there is any untoward incident, the petitioner can report the
matter to the Police, who will reach her house in a few minutes.
In the present circumstances, there is no necessity to afford
any police protection to the petitioner.
2025:KER:20257
WP(C) NO. 27219 OF 2024
3. Heard: the petitioner, the learned Government
Pleader, and Sri. M.S. Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for the
respondents 6 to 8.
4. The petitioner repeated the contentions in the writ
petition. She submitted that if this Court does not grant an order
of police protection, the 4th respondent would kill her by letting
out poisonous gas. The learned Government Pleader submitted
that the police have, in their inquiry, found the allegations in
Ext.P1 complaint and in the writ petition are false. The
allegations are only a figment of the petitioner's imagination.
The learned Counsel for the respondents 6 to 8 submitted that
the said respondents have no intention to cause any harm to
the petitioner or her property. The allegations in the writ petition
are false and unfounded. The petitioner appears to be suffering
from hallucinations and she is unnecessarily fighting with all her
neighbours. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
5. After carefully scrutinising the pleadings and
materials on record, this Court finds that, other than the bald
2025:KER:20257
WP(C) NO. 27219 OF 2024
assertions in the writ petition and the complaints submitted
before the police, there are no materials to prove the petitioner's
accusations. The third respondent has conducted a thorough
inquiry and concluded that there are no threats to the lives of
the petitioner or her family members, and there are no law-and-
order problems in the petitioner's locality. Similarly, respondents
6 to 8 have undertaken that they have no intention to cause any
law-and-order problem.
6. Viewed in the above background, this Court is not
inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, merely on the assumptions and
conjectures of the petitioner, without any cogent material or
proof.
In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to direct the
respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner.
Nonetheless, it is clarified that, if there is law and order in the
petitioner's residence and if she submits a written complaint to
the third respondent, then the third respondent shall ascertain
2025:KER:20257
WP(C) NO. 27219 OF 2024
the genuineness of the complaint and act in accordance with
the law, without interfering in any civil dispute between the
petitioner and any third party.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS,
JUDGE
rmm
2025:KER:20257
WP(C) NO. 27219 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27219/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINTS FILED BY
PETITIONER BEFORE SI VALKOM, DGP, DYSP,
COLLECTOR, SP KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY MAIL RECEIVED FROM
DGP KOTTAYA
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AD CARD FOR THE
REPRESENTATION DATED ON 02.04.2024
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENCE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE UDAYANAPURAM PANCHAYATH
DATED ON 21.01.2019.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED
BEFORE SHO VAIKOM AND SP KOTTAYAM VIA
EMAIL
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINTS FILED BEFORE SI
VAIKOM, SP KOTTAYAM VIA EMAIL
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF AD CARD SEND TO ADV.
VARGHESE C KURIAKOSE BY REGISTERED
SPEED POST
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINTS FILED BEFORE
SHO VAIKOM, SP KOTTAYAM VIA EMAIL
