Dismissed

Vincent v. the City Police Commissioner, Ernakulam

Kerala HC19 Nov 2010WP(C)/17369/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging police harassment was heard. The petitioner alleged police intimidation and harassment due to school operation on his property. The court recorded the Government Pleader's submission that the police officer intended no further proceedings and parties could approach the competent forum, then dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's claim dismissed based on the submission that the police officer holds no intention to proceed further.

Vincent Vs the City Police Commissioner… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | 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

FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶6

WP(C).No. 17369 of 2010(U)

¶7

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

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

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

¶10

VINCENT,AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.ANDREW, KOTTAPPURATH HOUSE, MOOLANKUZHI, KOCHI-2.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE, SRI.A.V.JOJO.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

1. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THOPPUMPADY POLICE STATION.

¶16

3. ARUJA LITTLE STAR SCHOOL, REP.BY PRINCIPAL, MOOLANKUZY, KOCHI.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.K. VIPINDAS. R3 BY ADV. SRI.B.SAJEEV KUMAR, SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 17369/2010-U

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29/06/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29/04/2010. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/09/2007 IN O.P. NO. 104/2007.

¶23

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, RAMESWARAM DATED 15/09/2008.

¶24

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 01/06/2010.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

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

¶30

==============================

¶31

W.P.(C) NO. 17369 OF 2010

¶32

============================

¶33

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2010

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

K.M. Joseph, J.

¶36

The petitioner is a driver by profession. He has approached this court complaining harassment by the police and he seeks a direction not to summon him to police station except in accordance with procedure.

¶37

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. The third respondent school is functioning on the western side of the petitioner's property. The said property is having an extent of 6.90 cents. It is purchased by one Melbin Decruz from the sisters of the petition. Now the wife of Melbin Decruz namely Maggie Decruz is running a school in that property. The petitioner is suffering from sound pollution and also from the effluents from the school. He made some complaints and as a result, 2^nd respondent police officer came to the house of the petitioner and directed to cut and remove the plants situated in the property of the petitioner in order to give smooth pathway to the third

¶38

Wpc 17369/2010 2

¶39

respondent. When the petitioner tried to convince the second respondent that the third respondent school is functioning unauthorizedly, 2^nd respondent threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. This is the case of the petitioner.

¶40

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 and also the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader submits that complaint is received from third respondent that the pathway to the school is obstructed by the plants standing on the property of the petitioner and he was called to the station. He did not turn up. The learned Government Pleader further submits that police officer does not intend to proceed in the matter. We record the said submission and make it clear that this will not stand in the way of the parties approaching the competent forum.

¶41

K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶42

M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE

¶43

lgk

Vincent v. the City Police Commissioner, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vincent v. the City Police Commissioner, Ernakulam

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

State of Kerala Vs Poyili Leela

Pallipurath Musthafa Moosa Vs K.S.E.B by Its Secretary

Subhashini.J. Vs District Superintendent of Police

M.P.Abdul Razak Vs Hayarunnisa T.P. and Others

Vasumathy Vs Sumathy

V.K.Steel House Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police & Ors.