Sheela K.P. and Krishnendu vs The Superintendent of Police and Others

R. Basant, J.—These writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as the dispute raised is substantially identical. A mother and her daughter-in-law are the Petitioners in W.P. (C) No:8357/2011; whereas her two sons are the Petitioners in W.P. (C) 8404/2011.

The Petitioners in both these petitions claim protection from Respondents 5 to 9 who are common in both the petitions. According to the Petitioners they apprehend harm to their lives and person from Respondents 5 to 9. Respondents 5 to 9 on account of prior animosity have indulged in and are likely to indulge in contumacious, culpable and violent conduct against the Petitioners. In these circumstances it is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued under Article 226 to afford protection to the Petitioners.

Respondents 5 to 9 have entered appearance through counsel. The learned Counsel contends that all the allegations in the petitions are untrue and incorrect. The boot is on the other leg. It is the Petitioners who are indulging in culpable and objectionable conduct against Respondents 5 to 9. Cleverly separate petitions have been filed recognising the reality that a crime has been registered against the Petitioners in W.P(C) 8404/2011 i.e. the two sons. Respondents 5 to 9 have no intention whatsoever to indulge in any culpable conduct against the Petitioners. They actually apprehend improper and objectionable conduct from the Petitioners herein. In these circumstances no directions are liable to be issued in favour of the Petitioners in these two petitions. Petitions may be dismissed it is prayed.

We turned to the learned Govt. Pleader for submissions. The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instructions from Respondents 1 to 3 submits that in the perception of the police officials there is no threat to the lives or person of the Petitioners in these petitions or for lives or person of Respondents 5 to 9. A crime and counter crime have been registered and investigation is in progress. Necessary and needful action shall be taken by the police to abate any threat against either party emanating from the other. There is no necessity to issue any directions under Article 226 submits the learned Govt. Pleader.

We have considered all the relevant inputs. We take note of the allegations and counter allegations raised by the rival contestants. We take note of the submissions of the learned Govt. Pleader. It is the burden and responsibility of the police to maintain law and order. The police has to take action for crimes committed and also to deter the commission of crimes. In exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226, directions can be issued where the Court feels particular necessity to issue such directions. Ordinarily and normally it must be left to the police to ensure that law and order is maintained and no crimes are committed. Having rendered our anxious consideration to the relevant inputs in this case we are not persuaded to agree that any specific directions under Article 226 can or deserve to be issued. The submissions of the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3 can be safely accepted and proceedings can be closed.

In the result;

a) This petition is dismissed.

b) We make it clear that we dismiss the petition accepting the submissions of the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3.