Disposed

Elizabeth Joy v. Sub Inspector &Ors

Kerala HC18 Aug 2010WP(C)/21937/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought police protection from respondents 4 and 5. The Court recorded their denial of threats and directed lower police authorities to afford protection if a specific threat is later brought to their notice, disposing of the petition without adjudicating the merits of the allegations.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 and 2 directed to afford protection if a specific threat to the petitioner's life is brought to their notice.

Elizabeth Joy Vs Sub Inspector &Ors — 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 MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932

¶6

WP(C).No. 21937 of 2010(N) --------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

¶9

ELIZABETH JOY, AGED 42, JOY VILLA VENMONY PO, CHENGANOOR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VENMONY.

¶14

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENGANNOOR.

¶15

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA

¶16

THOMAS.T, JOSEPH ALIAS SUNNY

¶17

PASTOR, HEBRON IPC SOUTH CHURCH, VENMONY.

¶18

V.O.GEORGE

¶19

VARIKKOLETHU, VENMONY P.O.CHENGANNOOR.

¶20

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

¶21

ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU FOR R4 & 5

¶22

SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) FOR R4 & 5

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

APPENDIX IN W.P.(C). NO. 21937 OF 2010 N

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶26

EXT.P1COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.3.2010.

¶27

EXT.P2COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.07.2010.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXT.R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIFTH RESPONDENT.

¶30

//TRUE COPY//

¶31

PS TO JUDGE.

¶32

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

¶33

----------------------------------------W.P.(C).NO. 21937 OF 2010

¶34

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 18th August, 2010 .

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

K.M. Joseph, J.

¶37

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking police

¶38

protection. It is stated that the petitioner is a Member of Herbon IPC Church. Some allegations have been raised against respondents 4 and 5. A detailed Counter Affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 and 5 denying the allegations. In paragraph 25, it

¶39

is, inter alia, stated as follows:

¶40

“25. None of the grounds raised in the Writ Petition is maintainable. Petitioner is not entitled to any relief prayed for. Respondents 4 and 5 have not made any threat at any point of time to the petitioner and they are not intending to do so as there is no reason for such an action.”

¶41

W.P.(C).NO.21937 OF 2010 N

¶42

¶43

Petitioner has filed a Reply Affidavit.

¶44

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶45

counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 and also the learned Government Pleader.

¶46

We record the statement in paragraph 25 of the Counter Affidavit of respondents 4 and 5 that they have not made any threat at any point of time, and that they are not intending to do so as there is no reason for such action. Besides this, we also direct that in case any specific threat to the life of the petitioner by respondents 4 and 5 is brought to the notice of respondents 1 and 2, they shall look into it and if it is found to be genuine, protection for the life of the petitioner shall be afforded. We make it clear that we have not gone into the correctness of the allegations made by the parties against each other and any Court/Forum before which any lis between the parties or between the petitioner and

¶47

W.P.(C).NO.21937 OF 2010 N

¶48

¶49

the Church comes up, shall be free to decide the issue untrammeled

¶50

by anything contained in this Judgment.

¶51

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/=

K.M. JOSEPH,

Sd/=

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,

¶56

kbk.

¶57

//True copy//

¶58

PS to Judge

Elizabeth Joy v. Sub Inspector &Ors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elizabeth Joy v. Sub Inspector &Ors

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

Dr.P.N.Premachandran Vs State of Kerala

Padmanabhan Vs State of Kerala & Others

K.v.Anthichan, Secretary-in-Charge Arthu Vs the Sub Inspector of Police,Arthunkal

P.Saji and Another Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Others

Arjunan Swamy Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police

Gireesha Kumar Vs Director General of Police