Disposed

K.a.Francis v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jul 2010WP(C)/18847/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought police protection against threats during a real estate transaction dispute. The Court directed authorities to provide protection if threats materialize without adjudicating the merits of the threat allegations.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent (Sub Inspector of Police) to provide adequate protection to the petitioner against threats from the fourth respondent if brought to notice.

K.a.Francis Vs State of Kerala — 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 & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 18847 of 2010(E)

PETITIONER:

K.A.FRANCIS, AGED 50, S/O.AUGUSTINE, KUNNANATTU HOUSE, PUTHENPALLY, VARAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.

¶14

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 683513.

¶15

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683172.

¶16

T.Y.VARGHESE, S/O.YOHANNAN, THATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUVANIYUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 308.

¶17

GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI. T.K. VIPINDAS FOR R1-3 ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) FOR R4

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 18847 of 2010

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXT.P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DT.20.5.2010.

¶23

EXT.P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DT.29.5.2010.

¶24

EXT.P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING RECEPTION OF EXT.P2 DT.30.5.2010.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶26

// TRUE COPY//

¶27

K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶28

- - - - W.P.(C).No. 18847 of 2010 E

¶29

- - - - Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Joseph, J.

¶32

The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows.

¶33

i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 2 and 3 to provide sufficient and adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and his family members against the threat raised by the 4^th respondent in the interest of justice.

¶34

ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 2 and 3 to consider Exts.P1 and P2 and to take appropriate action based on the same in accordance with law within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice.”

¶35

W.P.(C).No. 18847 of 2010

¶36

Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner was a commission agent involved in a real estate transaction, for which he has to receive some money from the 4^th respondent. In regard to the same, he filed a complaint before the 2^nd respondent. The further complaint is that pressure is put on the petitioner to withdraw the complaint and there is threat to his life. He has narrated some instances also.

¶37

The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent would deny the said allegations and submits that the allegations are not correct. He would submit that the 4^th respondent has no intention to cause any threat to the petitioner nor has there any pressure to withdraw the complaint. He would also submit that the 4^th respondent has no connection with the petitioner.

¶38

We record the said submissions and dispose of the Writ Petition directing that in case there is any threat from the 4^th respondent to the petitioner, which is brought to the notice of the third respondent,

¶39

W.P.(C).No. 18847 of 2010

¶40

¶41

the third respondent will provide adequate protection to the petitioner as against any threat from the 4^th respondent. We also make it clear that we have not gone into the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner against the 4^th respondent.

¶42

(K. M. JOSEPH)

¶43

Judge

¶44

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge

¶45

K.a.Francis v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.Francis 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

S.Leeladevi Vs C.I of Police

Moideen Kunhi Vs State of Kerala

Binu John Vs the Superintendent of Police Kollam&Ors

Rajamma Vs T.O Mathew

Mithu Babu Vs State of Kerala and Others

Siji Vincent and Others Vs Circle Inspector of Police and Others