P.RAJEEV Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is permanently residing in his house with his aged mother. The grievance of the petitioner is the continuous harassment by respondents 4 to 7. Respondents 4 to 7 are taking law in their hands. Respondents 2 and 3 are helping respondents 4 to 7. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. The Commission recommended the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha to give direction to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Detachment, Alappuzha to afford sufficient police protection to the petitioner from respondents 4 to 6. In the absence of any pragmatic action by respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Aroor. No action was taken by the third respondent to afford adequate and effective police protection for the life of the petitioner and his aged mother. Hence the petitioner is before us.

(3.) , if he informs the police about any threat from respondents 1, 2 and 4 in Ext.P1. Petitioner apparently filed Ext.P2. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the parties, including the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the party respondents would submit that actually after Ext.P1, there has been no instance of any threat from the party respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that a crime has been registered. According to the learned Government Pleader, all incidents took place before 2009.