AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
i). issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to afford adequate protection for life of the petitioner and his family members from the threat of third respondent and his henchmen and
ii). issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext. P2 and grant adequate protection for life of the petitioner and his family members from the threat of third respondent and his henchmen.
Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioner is a document writer having his office at Chennamangalam. The 3rd respondent is a friend of the petitioner and he approached the petitioner for some financial assistance for his business purpose. As the petitioner was not having sufficient cash, he introduced the third respondent to one Mr. Mani, S/o. Paraman, Thevarthara House, Edavanakkad Village who was his close relative. Mr. Mani was a subscriber to ''Saphalyam Chitty of New Millenium Kuries at Thrissur and an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was prized in his favour. An amount of Rs. 9 lakhs from the aforesaid prize money was withdrawn on the strength of deposit of title deed of property belonging to the third respondent and Rs. 6 lakhs was given to him. Subsequently, the amount was returned by the third respondent to Mr. Mani through the petitioner and Mani issued receipt for the same. It is submitted that Mani did not deposit the cash and thereby the title deeds of the property of third respondent was not released. Hence a complaint was preferred by third respondent against the petitioner before Vadakkekkara police station. The 3rd respondent entrusted the matter to a quotation team, who frequently come to the petitioner''s house and is threatening the petitioner to give Rs. 6 lakhs to 3rd respondent or to convey his property. The petitioner is not in a position to come to his house or go to his workplace due to the threat of the 3rd respondent and his goondas. They are even threatening his family consisting of wife and school going daughter. As the petitioner could not reside in the house due to the threat a complaint was preferred by the petitioner''s wife before the 2nd respondent requesting for police protection, but no action has been taken. Hence, the petition.
We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent wanted to file counter affidavit. He would deny the allegations made against the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. The learned counsel would submit that, the 3rd respondent has no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner of his family members (wife and daughter). He would point out that Crime No. 394/13 has been registered and that the petitioner actually filed this writ petition to see that the crime is not investigated. We record the submission of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that the 3rd respondent has no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner or his family members (wife and daughter). We, further direct that, in case the petitioner complains to the 2nd respondent of any threat to the life of the petitioner or to the life of his wife and daughter from the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent will look into the complaint, and, if it is found to be genuine, he will afford protection to the life of the petitioner and his family members as aforesaid as and when required as against the 3rd respondent. We further make it clear that, this judgment will not stand in the way of the police officer investigating Crime No. 394/13 as aforesaid in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.