Dismissed

P.K.Raju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jul 2010WP(C)/22127/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing police respondents to provide protection against alleged threats by respondents 10-12 over a property dispute. The bench denied protection on merits, pending criminal trial, and directed future reporting of threats to police.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to approach competent court regarding property dispute; future threats must be reported to police.

P.K.Raju Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22127 of 2010(M) -------------------------------------PETITIONER(S): ---------------------

¶3

P.K.RAJU, AGED 42, S/O.KUNJU KUNJU, PURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE PO, PUTHENCRUZ.

¶4

BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SMT.PRIYA R.KUMAR

¶5

RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------

¶6

STATE OF KERALA, REP,BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶7

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE COCHIN CITY, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶8

THE ASST.,COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANADU.

¶9

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL STATION, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶10

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE(SHO), CENTRAL STATION, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶11

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(RURAL), ALUVA-683101.

¶12

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA-686661.

¶13

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHENCRUZ-682308.

¶14

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHENCRUZ- 682308..

¶15

SRI.MAHENDRAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHOTTANIKKARA PO, ERNAKULAM-682312.

¶16

SRI.VINOD, SON IN LAW OF .MAHENDRAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHOTTANIKKARA PO, ERNAKULAM-682312.

¶17

SRI.SURESH, BRANCH SECRETARY, COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA(MARXIST),EROOR BRANCH-682306.

¶18

R1 TO R9 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. ADV. SRI.K.V.JAYACHANDRAN FOR R10 & 12 SRI.RAJU V.MATHEW FOR R10 TO 12

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 22127 of 2010(M)

¶21

-2-

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P1.TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION.

¶24

EXT.P2.TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3.TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITIONS SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENTS 6 TO 9. EXT.P4.TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

W.P.(C) No.22127 of 2010-M

¶28

Dated, this the 22^nd day of July, 2010

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

K.M.Joseph, J.

¶31

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶32

“i. to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing respondents 2 to 5 or the concerned among them to render adequate and meaningful police protection to the petitioner in the matter of his life and in the matter of his running of office

¶33

at Door No.6, Kolatheri Towers, Valanjambalam, Ernakulam in the basement floor against acts of violences, threats, intimidations, assaults and other commissions from the end of respondents 10 to 12 and persons under them.

¶34

ii. to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, directing respondents 6 to 9 or the concerned among them to render adequate and meaningful police protection to the petitioner and his family members in the matter of his life and residence in the residential building known as Purayidathil House, Near School Ground, Vadavukodu, Puthencruz, against acts of violences, threats, intimidations, assaults and other

¶35

WPC 22127/2010 -2-

¶36

commissions from the end of respondents 10 to 12 and persons under them.”

¶37

The further prayer is for a direction to take decision on Ext.P1 and P3.

¶38

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a Law Graduate engaged in Chamber practice. He availed a loan for purchasing property of the 10^th respondent. According to him, the entire purchase price was given to the 10^th respondent. There is a reference to some dispute, and the further allegation is against respondents 10 to 12 of using force. There is allegation of threat to life.

¶39

Today, when the matter came up, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 10 to 12 Sri.Raju P.Mathews would deny the allegations. According to him amounts are due from the petitioner to the 10^th respondent. He would submit that legal proceedings is being taken and there will be no threat to the petitioner as apprehended by him. We record the above submission and dispose of the writ petition. In case there is any threat from respondents 9 to 12 to the life of the petitioner and it is brought to the notice of

¶40

WPC 22127/2010 -3-

¶41

respondents 4 and 5 or either of them they shall take appropriate action for granting protection to the life of the petitioner. We make it clear that we have not pronounced on the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner and when the matter comes before the competent Court, that Court will be free to decide the matter untrammelled by anything contained in this judgment.

(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE.

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)

JUDGE.

P.K.Raju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Raju 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajamma Vs T.O Mathew

K.a.Francis Vs State of Kerala

Mithu Babu Vs State of Kerala and Others

Thankamma Jacob & Another Vs Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta

Noohkannu Vs Circle Inspector of Police & Others

Veega Holidays Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate