AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:
"direct respondent 1 and 2 to grant adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family from the illegalities of respondents 3 and 4 and their henchmen by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction."
According to the petitioner, he has witnessed commission of an offence by the 3rd respondent. His grievance is that respondents 3 and 4 are threatening him with dire consequences so as to coerce him from not giving evidence as a witness in crime No. 271/2010 of Venmoney Police Station.
Today, when the matter came up, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 wanted time to file counter affidavit. According to the counsel, the allegations are not correct. More importantly, he would submit that, respondents 3 and 4 have no intention to threat the life of the petitioner or his family members (wife and daughter). We record the said submission. In case the petitioner complains of any threat contrary to the assurance given before this Court by respondents 3 and 4, before the first respondent, the first respondent will look into it, and, if the complaint is found to be genuine, he will afford protection to the life of the petitioner and his wife and daughter as against respondents 3 and 4. We make it clear that, we have not gone into the merits of the allegations against respondents 3 and 4. We also make it clear that, if the matter comes before any Court in a lis between the parties, that Court is free to decide the matter untrammelled by this judgment.