respondent. Later, he submitted Ext.P4 representation before the State Police Chief. The petitioner further states that he was the owner of extensive properties at Vagamon and those properties were sold to several persons on the strength of valid title deeds. Those persons have put up constructions after obtaining permits and licences. After registration of the crime, the revenue authorities refused to accept basic tax from the purchasers. This led the purchasers to approach the petitioner and threaten him. According to the petitioner, this is the handiwork of the 5th respondent. He would state that his daughter-in-law instituted O.S.No.161 of 2010 claiming rights over 10 Acres of property and the suit was decreed by the trial court and confirmed in appeal by the Subordinate Judge, Kattappana. Against the judgment rendered by the courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring R.S.A.No.827 of 2018 and by Ext.P1 order dated 29.3.2019, status quo of the disputed property as it existed on the lower court’s decree was ordered to be maintained. In spite of the above, several persons at the instance of the 5th respondent are frequenting the home of the petitioner, where he is residing with his aged wife and they are being threatened with physical harm. Seeking protection for his life and liberty, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 complaint before the respondents 2 to 4. According to the petitioner, no assistance was rendered by the said respondents. It is in the afore
