Disposed

C.T.Moosakutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Nov 2010WP(C)/14478/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking police protection against threats from respondents 7-9 and intervention in a pending investigation. Court directed the third respondent to examine threat complaints and direct, affirming this does not hinder existing legal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed Third Respondent to examine threat complaints and afford protection if genuine; clarified this does not hinder investigation or civil proceedings.

C.T.Moosakutty Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶6

WP(C).No. 14478 of 2010(H) -----------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

--------------------------

¶9

1. C.T.MOOSAKUTTY, AGED 55, S/O.KOYA, CHETTIYANTHUDY, PANDURANGADY, THIRURANGADY,MALAPPURAM,

¶10

2. C.T.FAROOK, AGED 38, S/O.KOYA, CHETTIYANTHUDY,PANDURANGADY,THIRURANGADY, MALAPPURAM.

¶11

3. FIROZ, AGED 25, S/O.C.T.MOOSAKUTTY, CHETTIYANTHUDY, PANDURANGADY,THIRURANGADY,MALAPPURAM.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

----------------------------

¶15

1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPUAM.

¶18

4. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 45,S/O.KHADER, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRURANGADI POLICE STATION,

¶19

5. RAFEEQUE,AGED 38,FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRURANGADI POLICE STATION.

Kss

..2/-

..2....

WPC.NO.14478/2010 H

¶24

6. NAYARANAN, AGED ABOUT 51, ADDL.SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRURANGADI POLICE STATION,

¶25

7. IBRAHIMKUTTY,AGED 38,S/O.ISMAILKUTTY, PANDARANGADI P.O.,THRIKKULAM,THIRURANGADI,MALAPPURAM.

¶26

8. C.KAREEM, AGED ABOUT 35. S/O.ISMAILKUTTY, PANDARANGADI P.O.,THRIKKULAM, THIRURANGADI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶27

9. M.P.ISMAIL, AGED 40, S/O.ABBU, MANAMPALLY,PANTHERANGADI, THIRURANGADI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶28

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R7,R8 & R9 BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.SUDHEER, SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY.

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

Kss

¶31

WPC.NO.14478/2010 H

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22/12/2009 IN WP(C) 37321/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶35

P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN COPY IN CRIME NO.350/2010 THIRURANGADI POLICE STATION.

¶36

P3: COPY OF THE FIR NO.349/2010 OF THIRURANGADI POLICE STATION.

¶37

P4: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 30/04/2010 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶38

P5: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DTD. 01/05/2010.

¶39

P6: COPY OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 03/05/2010.

¶40

P7: COPY OF THE KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DTD. 03/05/2010.

¶41

P8: COPY OF THE CHANDRIKA DAILY DTD. 03/05/2010.

¶42

P9: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶43

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

**K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.14478 of 2010

¶48

Dated this the 2^nd day of November 2010

¶49

J U D G M E N T

¶50

K.M.JOSEPH,J

¶51

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶52

i) Issue, writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the respondents 2 to 4 or the concerned among them to render, adequate and meaningful police protection to the petitioners in the matter of their life and property against acts of threats, violences, obstructions and interferences to be committed by respondents 7 to 9 and persons under them.

¶53

ii) Issue, writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the respondents 2 and 3 to take up Exts.P4 and P9 and to take a decision on the specific request of intervention in the investigation of Crime No.350/2010 of Thirurangadi police station, and hand over investigation to some other authority and proceed against the respondents 7 to 9 by arresting them and thereby rendering justice to the petitioners.

¶54

¶55

W.P.C.No.14478 of 2010

¶56

Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:

¶57

The complaint of the petitioners is against

¶58

respondents 5 to 9. It is alleged that there is threat against the petitioners. The learned Government Pleader, in fact, points out that seven crimes have been registered against the petitioners. A case under Section 107 Cr.P.C is also there. The learned counsel for the party respondents 7 to 9 would submit, in fact, that there is a civil suit as O.S.No.107/2008 pending between the petitioners and another. The petitioners deny the case of threat by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on documents produced along with reply affidavits. The petitioners have submitted Ext.P9 before the higher authorities.

¶59

Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and the learned Government Pleader, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:

¶60

In view of the apprehension of the petitioners, if the petitioners bring any complaint of threat to their life as against respondents 7 to 9 before the third respondent, the third respondent shall look into it and if the threat is found to be genuine, protection for life shall be afforded to the petitioners as

¶61

W.P.C.No.14478 of 2010 3

¶62

against respondents 7 to 9 as and when required. If the matter comes before any court/forum, the said court/forum shall proceed to dispose of the matter untrammeled by anything contained in this judgment. It is also open to the petitioners to prosecute Ext.P9 before the concerned authorities. We make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the investigation of the crime registered against the petitioners in accordance with law or in proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate being proceeded with against the petitioners, in accordance with law.

¶63

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶64

(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)

¶65

jsr

¶66

// True Copy// PA to Judge

¶67

W.P.C.No.14478 of 2010 4

¶68

¶69

W.P.C.No.14478 of 2010

¶70

K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.

¶71

.No. of 200

¶72

ORDER/JUDGMENT

¶73

30/082010

C.T.Moosakutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.T.Moosakutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Natarajan Vs State of Kerala

Anitha K.P. and Another Vs Anilraj and Others

Kamalam @ Kurumba Vs Kaiparamba Grama Panchayath

Muhammedali Vs P.P.Varghese

S.Subhash Vs State of Kerala and Others

Beenarani Vs Padmanabhan, Asi of Police.