Disposed

Bhagheerathan v. the District Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC16 Jul 2010WP(C)/20463/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought police protection from threats by respondents 4 and 5, alleged authorised bank representatives. Court recorded submission that they would act lawfully but directed police to take action upon alert regarding any threats.

What did the court decide?

Direction to police to take appropriate action after due enquiries if petitioner alerts them about any threats to his life.

Bhagheerathan Vs the District Superintendent of Police — 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 & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20463 of 2010(G) ---------------------------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

¶7

BHAGHEERATHAN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 59, RESIDING AT CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANTHIKAD DESOM, PADIYAM VILLAGE, P.O.ANTHIKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JAYASOORIAN SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.V.R.REKESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, CIVIL LINES, AYYANTHOLE P.O.,THRISSUR.

¶12

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLIE, ANTHIKAD POLICE STATION,ANTHIKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

ABHILASH PLAKKATT,C/O.HELLO P.C.SUPPORT, 28/118 H, PARAPILLY LANE, PANANMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036, RESIDING AT RAJ NIVAS, NEAR THATTAMPADY, KANJOOR P.O.,ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶15

AZETTE SOLUTIONS, II FLOOR, CHAKIAT CHAMBERS M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶16

R1 RO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS.

¶17

ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY FOR R4 &5

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.20463 OF 2010 G

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.6.2010.

¶22

EXT.P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT.

¶23

EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE SUBMISSION OF THE COMPLAINT.

¶24

EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE SUBMISSION OF THE COMPLAINT.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

PS to Judge

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(C). NO. 20463 OF 2010 G --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 16^th July, 2010

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

K.M. Joseph, J.

¶32

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection as against respondents 4 and 5. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

¶33

Petitioner is leading a retired life in his house at Anthikad together with his wife and elder of his two sons after thirty years of life in UAE. It is stated that while he was in UAE, he along with his partner had availed a bank loan. When he returned 7-8 months ago after handing over his business to an Arab citizen who agreed to pay off the loan, it was being repaid, is what the petitioner understands. The allegation is that the petitioner is receiving threats from respondents 4 and 5 to do away with the petitioner, if the petitioner is not paying the amount as they are claiming. It is thereafter stated that they are claiming the

¶34

WPC.20463/2010 G

¶35

¶36

amount on behalf of the Bank in UAE. It is stated that there is no notice received from the Bank. Petitioner filed complaint. There was no action.

¶37

A Counter Affidavit is filed by respondents 4 and 5 to which a Reply Affidavit also is filed. The stand taken in the Counter Affidavit is that respondents 4 and 5 are Authorised Representatives of the Bank and they are only legally pursuing the claim of the Bank against the petitioner.

¶38

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 reiterates that respondents 4 and 5 are Authorised Representatives of the Bank to which the petitioner owes money. He submits that respondents 4 and 5 will pursue their claim in a lawful manner and there will be no threat to the life of the petitioner. We record the said submission and while leaving it open to respondents 4 and 5 to lawfully pursue the claim on behalf of the creditor Bank as stated above, we direct that in

¶39

WPC.20463/2010 G

¶40

¶41

case there is any threat to the life of the petitioner by respondents 4 and 5 and if the petitioner alerts respondents 2

¶42

and 3 about the same, appropriate action shall be taken, after

¶43

making due enquiries, for securing the life of the petitioner.

¶44

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶45

Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶46

Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk.

¶47

// True Copy //

¶48

PS to Judge

Bhagheerathan v. the District Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagheerathan v. the District Superintendent of Police

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

Mariyamma George Vs Dist. Superintendent of Police & Others

Joseph Vs Superintendent of Police,Kollam & Ors.

Abdul Kareem Vs the State of Kerala & Others

United Spirits Ltd. Vs Dy.Superintendent of Police and Others

Kumary Joshy Vs State of Kerala

Gouri.B & Another Vs Superintendent of Police, Kollam & Ors.