SUKUMARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner approaches this Court seeking police protection against respondents 5 to 9, who are none other than his wife, children and son-in-law. The petitioner was a taxi driver and due to hard work, it is claimed that he acquired sufficient properties in Kattappana town and in other places. His relationship with wife, the 5 th respondent, got estranged and since 2000, the party respondents and the petitioner are residing separately. Although the petitioner was willing to give adequate share of his property to his wife and children, they were too greedy and made concerted effort to usurp the entire properties owned by the petitioner. They also attempted to admit the petitioner in a mental hospital by force with the intention to deprive him of his properties. A family settlement was arrived at vide Ext.P1, and in accordance with that, some of the properties belonging to him was given to respondents 5 to 7. The dispute pertaining to the fulfillment of Ext.P1 agreement continues. Respondents 5 to 8 even went to the extent of manhandling the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the complaint, he has lodged in 2002. The petitioner was compelled to approach this Court for interference and Ext.P3 order was passed by this Court directing the police authorities to see that his life is protected. But the harassment of respondents 5 to 9 continues unabated. They are threatening and intimidating him in order to coerce him to execute documents in their favour. The petitioner apprehends actual threat to his life at the hands of respondents 5 to 9 and so, filed Ext.P4 complaint before respondents 2 to 4, but no action has been taken. He is therefore compelled once again to approach this Court for remedy and seeks specific direction to respondents 2 to 4 to consider his complaint and to provide adequate and sufficient police protection to his life and property.

(2.) Learned Senior Government Pleader appeared for respondents 1 to 4. Though notice was served on respondents 5 to 9, none appeared. We had interaction with the petitioner in person. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was heard.

(3.) The petitioner has some serious family disputes with his wife and children, which can only be resolved by resorting to civil suit. Exercising the extra-ordinary remedy of this Court by issuing directions to respondents 1 to 4 may not be appropriate. However, any complaint regarding cognizable offence received by the police authorities, shall be acted upon in accordance with law, even without there being any specific direction from this Court. With these observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.