The court held that a writ for police protection is justified when a party faces threats and harassment, emphasizing the need for law enforcement to ensure safety and compliance with civil court orders.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners seek police protection for their business from the illegal acts of the 5^th respondent. Petitioners also seek for a direction to ensure that all obstructions, threats and harassment by the 5^th respondent are averted by the 4^th respondent.

2. Petitioners are husband and wife, who are involved in a distribution business under the name and style ‘SRK Agencies’, operated from a godown near their residence and claim to possess all valid licences for carrying on their business. According to the petitioners, the 5^th respondent is a neighbour, who, due to a personal enmity is displaying a hostile attitude against them and their business activities and frequently causes hindrances and obstructions, thereby affecting their livelihood. Petitioners also allege that despite several complaints to the police, no action has been taken. Petitioners also refer to an instance of the Chalakkudy Municipality complaining to the police, about the obstructions and interference by the 5^th respondent with re-taring works of a public road leading to the godown of the petitioners, Petitioners also allege that on 01.02.2024, when they requested the 5^th respondent to remove the obstructions created on the road leading to their godown, he became violent and hacked the petitioners with a sword causing grievous injuries resulting in registeration of Crime No.119 of 2024 of Chalakkudy Police Station for various offences including Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

3. Petitioners have pleaded that they have filed O.S. No.52 of 2024 before the Munsiff’s Court, Chalakkudy seeking a prohibitory injunction against the 5^th respondent and an ad-interim injunction was initially granted by the learned Munsiff as per Ext.P6. On coming to know about the injunction order, the 5^th respondent became more aggressive and continued to cause obstructions and hurled insults and threats at the petitioners. The writ petition also alleges that, subsequently, the 5^th respondent filed an application to vacate the injunction order, but it was dismissed by Ext.P7 order dated 13.06.2024. Petitioners allege that on 02.10.2024, the 5^th respondent obstructed a vehicle while it was on its way to the godown and verbally abused the petitioners using obscene language and hurled life threats. Terrified by the conduct of the 5^th respondent, petitioners have again approached the police, but without any avail. Petitioners alleged that they continue to live in constant fear for their lives and safety of their property due to the 5^th respondent’s continued threats and their apprehension having not been redressed by the police, they have approached this Court through this writ petition.

4. The 5^th respondent has filed a ‘counter affidavit’, which is not in the form of an affidavit, but more like a writ petition. Despite not complying with the requirements of a counter affidavit since the Registry of this Court had not noted any defects, its contents are considered. The 5^th respondent has controverted the contentions raised in the writ petition and alleges that the petitioners have suppressed facts and has not impleaded a necessary party to the proceedings. According to the 5^th respondent, the disputed area is a private property belonging to his wife, which has not been acquired by the Municipality. It is stated that the ex-parte order obtained by the writ petitioners from the Munsiff Court was by fraudulent means, after suppressing material facts. Apart from making sweeping allegations against the petitioners for alleged suppression, the 5^th respondent alleged that the petitioners had attacked him resulting in serious injuries and even damaged his car. The 5^th respondent has