Court declines police protection due to mutual allegations, emphasizing non-intervention in personal disputes.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks for a direction to consider his complaint and afford effective police protection in the life of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is running a financial institution by the name Immanuel Financiers and claims to possess all the licences required under law. The 4^th respondent was living together with the petitioner under an agreement and thereafter, disputes arose between them. According to the petitioner, the 4^th respondent is demanding a huge amount of money as well as property and is also attempting to compel him to accede to her illegal demands. It is in such circumstances, that petitioner has approached this Court seeking the above reliefs.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4^th respondent stating that the petitioner is her present husband by virtue of Ext.R4(a) agreement and also that he had married earlier and had several wives and dozens of legitimate and illegitimate children at various places. It is also stated that petitioner is involved in several criminal cases including a rape case and that he had been compelling the 4^th respondent to share the bed with certain business partners including a police officer. Pointing out all the above circumstances, a complaint was filed before the Chief Minister of the State. The 4^th respondent further alleges that petitioner had even assaulted her and also that she is actually the victim.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner, an FIR has been registered as crime No.961/2025 of Punalur Police Station and the same is pending investigation.

6. The nature of allegations indicate that petitioner and the 4^th respondent were in a relationship with each other. Thereafter disputes arose between them. When the petitioner alleges that the 4^th respondent had assaulted him, the 4^th respondent contends that it was the petitioner who had assaulted her. Allegations and counter allegations are hurled at each other. Granting police protection to one party would tilt the scale of the balance to one side, which is not proper.

7. Having regard to the above disputes between them, this Court is of the view that there is no reason for the police to interfere in the interse dispute between the petitioner and the

4^th respondent. Therefore, a relief as sought for is declined.

However, in the event of any untoward incident occurring or being apprehended, the petitioner is at liberty to intimate the 3^rd respondent in writing, who shall act in accordance with law upon receipt of such intimation, and take all steps to avert and diffuse such a situation.

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-