Ramachandra Menon, J.
Petitioners have approached this Court for directing respondents 2 to 4 to afford proper and adequate protection to the life of the petitioners and their family from the alleged threat of party respondent and his henchmen.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a film producer and is running the establishment named as 'Akhil Cinemas'. In connection with the business, the first petitioner along with the 2nd petitioner, who is her husband, had borrowed Rs.20 lakhs from the 1st respondent. It is admitted that the petitioners could not satisfy the due amount on time. The 1st respondent who is working in London has deployed a person by name Biju who is stated as the collecting agent. At his instance, the petitioners are being harassed and it has become difficult to the petitioners to live. Meanwhile, the petitioners paid back about Rs.15 lakhs and also paid interest at the rate of 5% per WP(C) No. 13352 of 2014 -:2:-
month for the balance amount. But there was default after March, 2014. The collection agent threatened the petitioners with dire consequences. Eventhough petitioners have approached the Police, they did not pay any heed to the request and hence the writ petition.
3. Learned State Attorney submits on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 that the version of the petitioners as such is not correct or sustainable. It is stated that petitioners admittedly borrowed Rs.20 lakhs from the 1st respondent and since the whole amount was not repaid on demand, the 1st respondent filed a complaint before Police, who enquired in the matter. The 2nd petitioner was summoned to the police station to ascertain the facts and figures of the case and on the very next day, the petitioners approached this Court seeking for police protection without disclosing the actual facts and circumstances.
4. After hearing both the sides this Court finds that the actual issue is with regard to the return of money between the petitioners and 1st respondent which is purely a civil dispute. If at all any office has been committed by petitioner or 1st WP(C) No. 13352 of 2014 -:3:-
respondent, it is open for the Police to take action against the person and have the matter investigated. By leaving open the civil remedies available, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. If there is any law and order problem, it is the duty of the police to interfere and take remedial measures in accordance with law.
Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge.
ttb/30/05