RAJISHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she availed a loan of 10,000/ - from the 5th respondent who alleged to have obtained blank cheque leaves from her at the time of advance of money. 6th respondent is the brother of 5th respondent. When there was a threat made from the 5th respondent and also from respondents 6 and 7 she has filed Ext.P1 petition before the Women's Commission claiming police protection. Later she has filed Ext.P2 petition before the 4th respondent seeking police protection to her life and that of her family from any threat being caused by respondents 5 to 7 and their supporters. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of such petition the police is not taking effective steps in that matter. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner has approached this Court in this Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to afford adequate and appropriate police protection to the life of the petitioner and also that of his child and family members from the threat being caused by respondents 5 to 7 and their supporters.

(2.) ON 09/05/2014 this Court has directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions and issued notice by special messenger to respondents 5 to 7. Today, the learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 5 to 7 are mainly civil dispute. The learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 submits that the petitioner has availed a loan for 7.5 lakhs from them and she is evading repayment of said loan. The learned counsel for the 7th respondent submits that the petitioner has availed a loan of 5.45 lakhs from her and that the petitioner is evading repayment of the said loan. The learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 and also the learned counsel for the 7th respondent submits that their clients have never threatened the petitioner and they have no intention to do so. For recovery of the amount payable by the petitioner, they propose to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against her. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the amount claimed by respondents 5 to 7.

(3.) IF the respondents 5 to 7 have to recover any amount already advanced to the petitioner, it is upto them to do so by initiating appropriate legal proceedings against her. They cannot cause any threat to the life of the petitioner or that of her family members or take law into their hands.