Mariyamma Baby vs District Superintendent of Police and Others

R. Basant, J.—The Petitioner, a 64 year old widow, has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to Respondents 1 to 3 police officials to afford protection for her life and person against the threats on the part of Respondents 4 to 6 who are relatives of her deceased husband. Fourth Respondent is the brother. Fifth and sixth Respondents are the wife and daughter of the fourth Respondent.

According to the Petitioner, her husband was killed by Respondents 4 to 6. A crime was registered u/s 304 IPC. The Petitioner had demanded that investigation be conducted u/s 302 IPC. There was a dispute between the two sides about the pathway and even before the murder of the husband of the Petitioner, parties had gone to the civil Court. That civil suit is pending even now, it is submitted. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner was threatened by the fourth Respondent that she will also be done away with like her deceased husband. A complaint was filed before the Magistrate by the fourth Respondent and the same was referred to the police. A crime was registered on such complaint lodged by the fourth Respondent and the investigation was pending. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner allegedly perceives threat to her life from Respondents 4 to 6.

This petition was filed on 9.10.2009. It was admitted on the same day. Interim direction for protection for life as prayed for was ordered on 9.10.2009. Respondents have entered appearance. After 14.10.2009, there has been no posting of the case. The matter has now come up for hearing as the same has been listed for disposal by the Registry along with old pending matters.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the threat is real even now and that it is only because of the interim order granted on 9.10.2010, that the Petitioner is to live peacefully without any threat.

Respondents 4 to 6 have entered appearance. According to them, the allegations are totally false. The brother of the fourth Respondent, i.e. the husband of the Petitioner had died not on account of any contumacious or culpable conduct on the part of Respondents 4 to 6, but because of coronary heart disease. It is true that there is a dispute between the parties about a pathway. It is incorrect to say that the Petitioner faces any threat to her life or person from Respondents 4 to 6. The boot is on the other leg. It is really Respondents 4 to 6 who apprehend danger from the Petitioner and relatives. The undertaking of Respondents 4 to 6 that they shall abide by the decision of the civil Court and shall not in any way cause any threat to the life or person of the Petitioner may be recorded and this proceedings may now be closed, it is submitted.

We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the perception of the police officials, there is absolutely no threat to the life or person of the Petitioner now. It is not necessary to extend the interim order given as early as on 9.10.2009. If there be any threat to the life of the Petitioner, Respondents 1 to 3 shall take necessary action to abate any such threat, submits the learned Government Pleader.

We accept the submissions of the learned Counsel for Respondents 4 to 6. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. In the circumstances narrated above, we are of the opinion that no further directions under Article 226 of the Constitution are necessary now. We repeat that we accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3 that there is no threat now and if there be any threat, Petitioner can complain and necessary action shall be taken by Respondents 1 to 3.

This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations.