Discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised if material facts regarding civil disputes are suppressed by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner seeks for a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to afford sufficient police protection for the life and property of the petitioner and her family members.

2. Petitioner and the 5^th respondent are neighbours. In S.C.No.750/2022 of the Fast Track Special Court, Mattannur, the 5^th respondent was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354A (1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , apart from Section 11 (1) r/w Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 , and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a maximum period of one year. The said sentence has been suspended on appeal. The allegation in the aforesaid crime relates to sexual assault on petitioner’s minor daughter.

3. The petitioner alleges that, in the meantime, the 5^th respondent started threatening and harassing the petitioner and her family members including her daughter, and hence, two crimes were again registered. Thereafter, a petition was filed on 20.11.2024 seeking police protection. Despite the said request, no protection has been granted, and hence, she has approached this Court with this writ petition.

4. The counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent states that the petitioner and her husband have been harassing him due to certain property disputes, pending between them, which was initiated by him as O.S.No.427/2013 before the Munsiff Court, Taliparamba, and is now pending consideration as RSA No.182/2016. According to the 5^th respondent, the allegations about the petitioner attempting to harm the writ petitioner or her daughter are all false accusations made without any basis and that in order to protect him from such false accusations he had to even install CCTV cameras on his premises. It is asserted that a perusal of the CCTV visual will reveal that no incident as alleged had ever occurred. The 5^th respondent further alleged that he has been unnecessarily dragged into unwanted litigation, that too, at this old age.

5. I have heard Sri.Eldhose Joy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Manas P.Hameed, the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader.

6. Petitioner’s daughter was a victim in a POCSO case, in which the 5^th respondent was the accused and he has been convicted. The 5^th respondent had a case that the entire allegations were falsely raised due to a civil dispute pending between them. Irrespective of the above contentions, the fact remains that the petitioner has not revealed the existence of the civil dispute pending between the parties, while claiming protection for her life and property in this writ petition.

7. When matters that are relevant to the relief claimed have been suppressed, the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised in favour of such a party. Since the petitioner has failed to reveal the existence of a civil dispute between the parties, I am of the view that petitioner is not entitled for the grant of relief as sought for.

8. However, considering that there is an allegation of threat or harm to the petitioner and her family members, I am of the view that the police, who are bound to maintain law and order, must act in accordance with the obligations imposed upon them to ensure that there is no violation of law and order by virtue of any act or conduct of the 5^th respondent.

9. Hence, if in case there is any law and order situation that arises due to the conduct of the 5^th respondent, necessarily, the 3^rd respondent shall interfere and take necessary steps to avert any untoward incidents.

With the above observation, this writ petition is