Aminamol vs The Director General of Police and Others

K.M. Joseph, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 4 to render adequate and necessary protection to the life of the petitioner and her children from the threat of respondents 5 to 9 and their henchmen and

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents 1 and 2 to give appropriate direction to respondents 3 and 4 to take stringent action against respondents 5 to 9 to prevent their unlawful and highhanded action.

The petitioner has produced Exhibit P1 order, which is an order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court-II, Mavelikkara in M.C. No. 164/10 u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned Magistrate restrained the respondents from committing any domestic violence to the petitioner. It was further ordered that the petitioner shall be permitted to enter the shared household and residence therein and the Station House Officer was directed to give protection to the petitioner to implement the order. The case of the petitioner is that subsequently, as per the order, the petitioner started residence on 21.8.2010 with police aid. There was threat to the petitioner and she informed the 4th respondent. He came and warned respondents 5 to 9. However, subsequently, the petitioner was manhandled by respondents 5 to 9 and threatened her that she will be killed by setting her on fire. The petitioner was admitted to the Government Hospital, Haripad and thereafter she was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha. Exhibits P2 and P3 are produced to evidence treatment of the petitioner in those hospitals. The petitioner further filed a complaint before the 4th respondent for police protection as per Exhibit P4. It is stated that after treatment, the petitioner came to the house of the 5th respondent on 2.9.2010 and on 3.9.2010 she was again manhandled. The petitioner therefore filed Exhibit P5 complaint before the 3rd respondent.

We directed to get a report from the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court-II, Mavelikkara, which reads as follows:

As directed, contacted the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mavelikkara. The learned Magistrate informed that after the order Ext.P1 dated 10.8.2010, on 21.8.2010, the petitioner had submitted that the police had rendered help to her in compliance of the order. At that time, she had no complaint against the police. The S.H.O. was also directed to submit compliance report. The police filed report stating that the order was complied with. That report was received on 2.9.2010.

The petitioner in the meanwhile, on 28.8.2010, filed an affidavit stating that when she produced the copy of Ext.P1 order before the Sub Inspector of Police on 21.8.2010, the Sub Inspector threw away the copy of the order. The petitioner, her father, children and others remained in the Police Station. Thereafter, the petitioner and others were sent along with a Police Constable to her husband''s house. She complained in the affidavit that in the night of 21.8.2010 and on the morning of 22.8.2010 she was brutally manhandled by the persons mentioned therein. Her subsequent complaint dated 28.8.2010 has been registered as a private complaint on 6.9.2010 and arrest warrant has been issued against the respondents - the persons alleged to have harassed the petitioner.

We think that the petitioner has an effective remedy of approaching the Magistrate who has passed Exhibit P1 order for implementation of its orders as long as it stands. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate orders, the Writ Petition is disposed of.