GIRIJADEVI Vs. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) CASE of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Petitioner is the Manager of a School, named "Mithra Central School" in Patharam, Sooranad South Village, Kollam District. The fourth respondent also is running another School, named "Adhya Central School" nearby, with the help of a brother of the petitioner by name Saseendran Pillai. The said Saseendran Pillai is having some financial transactions with the fourth respondent and is now not in good terms with her. Respondents 5 and 6 are the brothers of fourth respondent, respondents 7 and 8 are relatives of the fourth respondent and the nineth respondent is her husband. There is reference to certain disputes. Petitioner filed Ext.P1 complaint. O.S.No.152/12 is filed by the petitioner. Ext.P3 is the injunction order. The party respondents are alleged to be still threatening the petitioner and her School. There is reference to incidents which took place on 16.7.2012. She filed Ext.P4 complaint and is before us.

(3.) COUNTER Affidavit is filed by respondents 4 to 9. It is alleged that the party respondents are chosen as scapegoats, only in her impure motives to get out of her and her brother's illegal and criminal activities being committed all over Kerala. Her brother is an impostor wooing people with his self-assumed black magic power to grab money and jewellery from the victims. The party respondents learnt that there are a number of cases in different courts in the State against the petitioner for cheque dishonour and cheating cases. It is stated that the fourth respondent was also a prey to the dubious activities of the petitioner and her brother and the fourth respondent was compelled to part with '.23 Lakhs and ten sovereigns of gold. There is reference to a settlement. It is further averred that the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent is running a school with the help of the brother of the petitioner, that there were financial transactions, and that the fourth respondent along with respondents 5 to 9 are threatening the petitioner are absolutely false and baseless.