SAJITHA DAS Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is residing in Valupurayidathil, Akamkudi P.O. Harippad, Alappuzha. Her husband is working in Muscat. The petitioner is aggrieved by open and continuous threat from the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has been continuously harassing the petitioner for the last one year. He is the petitioner's neighbour. He was usually to make telephone calls to the petitioner and to harass her in abusive language. On 2/7/2012, the 4th respondent trespassed into the petitioner's house and intimidated her, telling openly that he would kill the petitioner and the child. He also caught hold of the petitioner at the hand and thus physically assaulted her. It is submitted that there are no male members in the petitioner's family. In view of the persisting threat and harassment, the petitioner was constrained to seek the help of his brother Sri.Sanal who, was requested to come and reside at the petitioner's house. Accordingly, he started to reside in the petitioner's house. This action provoked the 4th respondent further, who in turn threatened the petitioner as well as the said Sri. Sanal. Sri. Sanal was also physically manhandled by the 4th respondent. Adding insult to the injured, a false case was foisted against the said Sanal. The petitioner's husband filed Ext.P1 complaint. The petitioner also filed similar complaint(Ext.P2). There is continuance threat on the part of the 4th respondent. There are no male members in the petitioner's family.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader would submit that there are complaints from both sides. There are clashes between both sides. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that the 4th respondent is at the receiving end and as a matter of fact, the 4th respondent's mother was attacked by the brother of the petitioner, Sanal who was already an accused and more importantly the counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that the 4th respondent has no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. The 4th respondent apprehends threat from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will not cause any threat to the life of the 4th respondent. We record the above submissions. We further direct that in case the petitioner complains to the 3rd respondent of any threat from the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent will look into it and if it is found to be genuine, he will afford protection to the life of the petitioner as against the 4th respondent. We make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the investigating officer to investigate the crime registered in accordance with law, nor will this judgment in any manner trammel the court before which the case is filed and the court will be free to decide the matter on the basis of the materials available on record and the law applicable. The writ petition is disposed of as above.