R. VISWANATHAN Vs. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) THE case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: Petitioners are husband and wife. Their daughter by name Divya, is working as UD Typist in the Homeopathic Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. Third respondent is a person having criminal antecedents and is a gangster. Third respondent trapped their daughter in love. Petitioners had arranged the marriage of their daughter with another person belonging to their caste which was to be solemnized on 07.11.2011. But the marriage did not take place due to the interference by the third respondent and his henchmen. On 22.8.2012, the daughter of the petitioners attended her office, but she was found missing from the office from the afternoon. On enquiry, the first petitioner came to know that their daughter went along with the third respondent. He made a complaint to the concerned Sub Inspector of Police about the missing of his daughter. On 26.8.2012, the associates of the third respondent informed the petitioners that the marriage of their daughter with the third respondent was solemnized on 25.8.2012. Now the third respondent wants the residential building and the property of the petitioners to be transferred in his name. He threatened the petitioners that they will be killed unless they vacate the premises. Thereafter, every day, the third respondent and his cohorts are coming to the residence of the petitioners and are abusing them with filthy language. Petitioners are not in a position to live peacefully in their residence or to go out from their residence because of the threat and harassment of the third respondent and his associates. Apprehending danger to their life and property, the petitioners are before us.

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader would submit that the complaint of the petitioners was enquired into and it was found to be false. Learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the third respondent is residing with the petitioners' daughter elsewhere and he denies the case that the third respondent is threatening the petitioners. He would submit that the third respondent has no intention to threaten the petitioners and he does not have any eye on their property.