Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29954
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.M.JOSEPH, K.HARILAL, JJ
VALSALA – Appellant
Versus
ARAVINDAKSHAN – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 22482/2012
The court emphasized the importance of providing protection against threats to life, acknowledging the police's role in ensuring safety without disrupting ongoing civil cases.
Headnote:
Protection - Writ Petition - Act Section List - The court considered petitions for police protection under relevant provisions, affirming that exigent circumstances warrant intervention to safeguard individuals' safety without affecting ongoing civil disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought police protection against threats from respondents regarding a property dispute stemming from her mother's will, alleging life threats to her and her son during the pendency of legal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that threats have been made but did not address the merits of the property dispute, emphasizing the police's duty to ensure safety in the face of genuine threats.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to police protection against alleged threats from respondents amid ongoing civil litigation over property rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that police protection can be granted if genuine threats to life are established, irrespective of pending civil litigation about property rights.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with direction for police protection if threats were found to be genuine.
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:
“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide adequate and necessary police protection to the life of the petitioner and her son from the hands of 3rd and 4th respondents and their men.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioner's mother had executed a registered Will in favour of the petitioner's son. Against the same, respondents 3 and 4 filed a suit for injunction. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner's husband and her mother died. Thereafter, respondents 3 and 4 and their men are constantly threatening the petitioner and her son to refrain from contesting the suit. Otherwise, their life will be in danger. Petitioners filed complaints and are before us.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 against whom allegations are made by the petitioner, would submit that respondents 3 and 4 have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner and her son. We record the said submission and dispose of the Writ Petition by directing that in the event of the petitioner complaining to the second respondent of any threat to the life of the petitioner and her son as against respondents 3 and 4, the second respondent will look into it and if it is found to be genuine, he will provide protection to the life of the petitioner and her son as against respondents 3 and 4. We make it clear that we have not pronounced on the merits of the contentions of the parties regarding property rights and the civil court is free to decide the matter untrammeled by anything contained in this Judgment. We are not ordering protection to the property rights.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/=
K. HARILAL, JUDGE kbk.
//True Copy//
