K. Narayana Pillai and Krishna Kumar N. v. The Superintendent of Police, Kollam District; The Deputy Superintendent of Police (DYSP), Karunagappally; The Sub Inspector of Police, Karunagappally Police Station; K. Gopinathan; Vijayamma

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.27047 OF 2020(E)** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**K. NARAYANA PILLAI,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 75 YEARS**| ||**S/O.LATE VASUDEVAN PILLAI, VRINDAVANAM, PADA**| ||**NAIRKULANGARA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM**| ||**DISTRICT, PIN 690 518**| |**2**|**KRISHNAKUMAR N.**| ||**AGED 38 YEARS**| ||**S/O.K.NARAYANA PILLAI, VRINDAVANAM, PADA**| ||**NAIRKULANGARA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM**| ||**DISTRICT, PIN 690 518**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.TOM JOSE**| ||**SMT.HARSHADEV M.**| ||**SMT. NIMMI BABU**| ||**SMT.NIMMY MURALI K.**| ||**SMT.GEETHA JOB(OZHUKAYIL)**| ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,**| |---|---| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT**| ||**OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 691 008**| |**2**|**THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (DYSP)**| ||**KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 690 518**| |**3**|**THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE**| ||**KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KARUNAGAPPALLY,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 690 518**| -2- WP(C).No.27047 OF 2020(E) |**4**|**K.GOPITNATHAN**| |---|---| ||**FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,**| ||**RESIDING AT KISHORA BHAVANAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY,**| ||**PADA NAIRKULANGARA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 690 518**| |**5**|**VIJAYAMMA**| ||**W/O.GOPINATHAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING**| ||**AT KISHORA BHAVANAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PADA**| ||**NAIRKULANGARA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM**| ||**DISTRICT, PIN 690 518**| **R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SUNIL NATH N.B R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- WP(C).No.27047 OF 2020(E) ## **JUDGMENT** The 1[st] petitioner, an ex-service man aged 75 years, is the owner of 3.75 Ares of property in Re-suvey No.602/6 of Karunagappally Village. The 2[nd] petitioner is the son of the 1[st] petitioner. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to grant adequate protection to the life of the petitioners from the threats of respondents 4 and 5 and their men. Respondents 4 and 5 are the neighbours of the petitioners. The petitioners submitted Ext.P2 complaint dated 03.10.2020 before the 2[nd] respondent and Ext.P3 complaint dated 31.10.2020 before the 3[rd] respondent and thereafter, moved this writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief. 2. On 07.12.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, notice before admission was ordered to the respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 4 and 5. 3. On 05.01.2021, the learned Government Pleader was directed to file statement on behalf of the 3[rd] respondent. -4- WP(C).No.27047 OF 2020(E) 4. On 15.01.2021, the learned Government Pleader sought further time to file statement of the 3[rd] respondent. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 sought time to file counter affidavit. This Court granted an interim order directing the 3[rd] respondent to take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality at the instance of the petitioners or respondents 4 and 5. 5. Along with a memo filed by the learned Government Pleader, the statement of the 3[rd] respondent Station House Officer is placed on record. 6. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed counter affidavit opposing the relief sought for in this writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 8. The Kerala Police Act, 2011 is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the establishment, regulation, powers and duties of the Police Force in the State of Kerala and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Chapter II of the Act deals with duties and functions of Police. Section 3 of the Act deals with general duties of -5- ## WP(C).No.27047 OF 2020(E) Police. As per Section 3, the Police, as a service functioning category among the people as part of the administrative system shall, subject to the Constitution of India and the laws enacted thereunder, strive in accordance with the law, to ensure that all persons enjoy the freedoms and rights available under the law by ensuring peace and order, integrity of the nation, security of the State and protection of human rights. Section 4 of the Act deals with functions of Police. As per Section 4, the Police Officers shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, perform the functions enumerated in clauses (a) to (s) of Section 4. As per clause (a), the Police Officers shall enforce the law impartially; and as per clause (b), the Police Officers shall protect the life, liberty, property, human rights and dignity of all persons in accordance with the law. 9. Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police thus; "In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, welltrained and well-disciplined force or police whom it can trust, and enough of them to be able to prevent crime WP(C).No.27047 OF 2020(E) -6- before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice. The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants." 10. In **Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary** **[(2014) 2 SCC 532]** the Apex Court held that, one of the responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the important duties the police has to perform. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the offender to the book. The Apex Court reiterated the said principle in **Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470]** . 11. In the instant case, the 1[st] petitioner owns 3.75 Ares of property in Re-survey No.602/6 of Karunagappally Village. There are certain disputes between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. Alleging that respondents 4 and 5 are insulting the petitioners using abusive words in front of their house and also in public places, the petitioners submitted Exts.P2 and P3 complaints before respondents 2 and 3, on -7- WP(C).No.27047 OF 2020(E) 03.10.2020 and 31.10.2020. Alleging repeated threats from the side of respondents 4 and 5 and their supporters, the petitioners have filed this writ petition before this Court seeking police protection. 12. In the statement filed by the 3[rd] respondent Sub Inspector Police, Karunagappally Police Station, it is stated that based on the complaints made by the petitioners the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 were summoned to the police station. Respondents 4 and 5 were warned and the petitioners were instructed to approach the police as and when necessary. 13. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 and 5 it is stated that respondents 4 and 5 are residing 500 meters away from the 1[st] petitioner's property. The property of the 1[st] petitioner and that of respondents 4 and 5 are separated by a compound wall having a height of 6 feet. The petitioners used to file false complaint and petitions against their neighbours. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following -8- ## WP(C).No.27047 OF 2020(E) ## directions; - (i) In case there is any law and order issues in connection with any dispute between the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5, the petitioners shall move the 3[rd] respondent Sub Inspector of Police with a request for Police protection. - (ii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioners, the 3[rd] respondent Sub Inspector of Police shall take necessary action on that request, without any delay, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. - (iii) The Police shall not interfere with any civil dispute between the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5. ## **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/9/4 -9- WP(C).No.27047 OF 2020(E) ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL PAPERS OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 7.1.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY PETITIONERS DATED 3.10.2020 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY PETITIONERS DATED 31.10.2020**