SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
JAYAJEE G. – Appellant
Versus
STATE POLICE CHIEF – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 38004 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.SANIL KUMAR
For the Respondents: PRATHEESH.P, ANJANA KANNATH, SAFNA P.S., RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE

The court addresses police protection sought against perceived threats and assesses the legitimacy of the claims, resulting in a dismissal of the writ petition based on findings of no credible threats.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks police protection against life threats from the respondents, who counter that the petition is filed to evict them unlawfully from their property. The court finds no existing threat and orders police intervention if needed to maintain order. The petition concludes with a disposal on grounds of no substantive threat being established.

Table of Content
1. request for police protection against life threats. (Para 1 , 2)
2. counsel arguments presented. (Para 3)
3. assessment of threat validity and court's directive. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the father of the 5th respondent and the father-in-

law of the 6th respondent. He seeks police protection against threat to his life by respondents 5 and 6, and has therefore approached this Court.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 5 and 6 stating that the writ petition is filed at the behest of the 5th respondent's sister who had trespassed into her property and caused damages. It is also stated that the 5th respondent's sister does not have any right to enter into the property where the petitioner is residing and the attempt through this writ petition is to evict respondents 5 and 6 from their property. It is also stated that a suit has been filed as O.S.No.208 of 2025 restraining the 5th respondent's sister from trespassing into the plaint scheduled property therein which is the house belonging to the 5th respondent where the petitioner is also residing.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 apart from the learned Government Pleader.

4. Respondents 5 and 6 admitted that they have no intention to cause any sort of threat to the petitioner. It was also submitted that they have also no intention to evict the petitioner from the residence where he is now residing which belongs to the 5th respondent. In view of the above, the apprehension of threat to the petitioner does not subsist. However, if in case the petitioner apprehends any threat, necessarily, the 4th respondent shall interfere and ensure that law and order is maintained and the petitioner is not subjected to any harm. However, this order shall not enure any benefit to any person other than the petitioner and if in case any third party including the sister of the petitioner attempts to take benefit out of this order, the police shall not afford any protection to such persons.

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

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top