THAMARAKSHAN Vs. SANTHOSH ALIAS UNNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an elderly person aged about 63 years, has come to this Court with this petition claiming issue of directions to respondents 3 and 4 to afford protection to the petitioner against culpable, contumacious, wanton and violent acts of respondents 1 and 2, his son and daughter in law.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he had settled an item of property in favour of respondents 1 and 2, his son and daughter in law. He has subsequently executed a revocation deed. ACCORDING to the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 are indulging in contumacious and violent acts against the petitioner because of the execution of the revocation deed. It is hence that he has come to this Court with this petition for police protection.

(3.) WE have considered all the relevant inputs. The contention that the petitioner is only attempting to help the first respondent in his dispute with the second respondent does appear to be very probable and acceptable. WE do not want to record any final opinion on that question. Suffice it to say that, we are not, in the facts and circumstances of this case, persuaded to invoke our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Maintenance of law and order and the prevention of crimes is the duty of the police and the police have to discharge their duty even without specific directions of this Court. Of course, in the peculiar facts of the given case, this Court does have jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue such specific directions, if any, necessary. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded to agree that there is any need for this Court to issue any such direction. WE are taking note of the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that if there be any genuine complaint or threat of commission of culpable acts against the petitioner, the petitioner can complain to the police and the police shall take necessary action. WE are not persuaded to issue any specific directions.