P.M. Rosy vs The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Babu Issac and Smitha Rose

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—In this writ petition the Petitioner, a 58 years old lady, seeks protection for her life and limb from what is described as the criminalities of Respondents 2 and 3 who are none other than her son and the daughter in law.

Considering the allegations in the writ petition and the submissions addressed before us by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we directed the learned Government Pleader to seek instructions from the 1st Respondent - Sub Inspector of Police regarding the correctness of the allegations and also as to what was the action taken by the police upon Ext.P4 petition submitted by the Petitioner. We also directed that if no action is so far taken on Ext.P4, immediate enquiry will be conducted and appropriate action will be taken on the basis of the facts revealed in the enquiry.

Today, on instructions Sri.M.R. Sabu learned Government pleader submitted that pursuant to the above order, the parties were summoned to the police station and Respondents 2 and 3 were strongly warned against endangering the life of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the situation is under control.

We have heard the submissions of Sri. Sherry J. Thomas learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri.B. Kishore learned Counsel for the Respondents 2 and 3. Mr. Sherry.J. Thomas made submissions on the basis of the averments in the writ petition and reiterated that it was on account of an imminent threat on the life and limb of the Petitioner from the Respondents 2 and 3 that the Petitioner approached this Court. Mr..B. Kishore submitted that the Petitioner has come to this Court as instigated by certain other persons probably her sisters who have eyes on the property. According to Mr. Kishore, the Petitioner had agreed in the police station that a portion of her property will be conveyed to Respondents 2 and 3, but now she is retracting from the above agreement.

In response to the above submission, Mr. Sherry J. Thomas submitted that the Petitioner even now is thinking in terms of giving a portion of her property to the 2nd Respondent who is her son. But, she is not a position to do that immediately as she and the property is heavily encumbered. Whatever that be, we in this writ petition are concerned as to whether there is any warrant for issuance of the directions sought for. The third direction sought for is to restrain Respondents 2 and 3 from entering into the property which clearly comes within the domain of the competent civil court. Hence, we decline the same. The second direction sought for is for directing the first Respondent to give protection for the life and limb of the Petitioner against the alleged criminalities of Respondents 2 and 3. We record the submissions made before us by the learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions as to what happened pursuant to the interim order passed by us. We record the assurance given to this Court by Sri. Kishore on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3 that his clients have no intention to disturb the peaceful life of the Petitioner in the building.

We dispose of the writ petition incorporating the above assurance, however, directing the first Respondent to take immediate action if any threat on the life of the Petitioner is reported.