Petitioners sought a writ to stop police investigation and questioning regarding a property dispute involving Crime No.171 of 2010. The court held the matter was left to official investigation and statutory remedies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932
WP(C).No. 22007 of 2010(A) -------------------------PETITIONERS: ---------------
BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH
SRI.P.R.RAJA
RESPONDENTS:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1&2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief:
“Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction direction to respondents 1 and 2 to refrain from the dispute in connection with the property and harassing the petitioners in connection with the money dispute between the first petitioner, her husband and the third respondent relating to Exts.P1 and P2 and the other immovable properties and from summoning and questioning the petitioners in the station and thereby harassing them in connection with Crime No.171 of 2010 of Vengara Police Station.
W.P.(C).No. 22007 of 2010
respondent. It is not in dispute that Crime No. 171 of 2010 was registered against the petitioners. No doubt, at the time when Ext.P3 judgment was obtained by the husband of the first petitioner, no crime had been registered and this Court had directed that if his presence is required, it shall be preceded by notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. But on the basis of the complaint
filed by the third respondent Crime No.171 of 2010 was registered.
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus to prevent official respondents from investigating a registered crime and from questioning petitioners in a money dispute context?
SIJI VINCENT
T.SAIDALAVI
SAJITHA
PRABHAKARAN
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM CIRCLE
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENGARA
K.M.JOSEPH
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
