Dismissed

Ravunni Nair v. the Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC4 Aug 2010WP(C)/22389/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a special leave petition dismissed with liberty to sue for improper conduct by officers, directed the State to ensure execution of an existing warrant and advised the parties to proceed legally if the warrant remains unexecuted.

What did the court decide?

Leave dismissed to dismiss the petition with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings; warrant to be executed as per law.

Ravunni Nair Vs the Superintendent of Police — Anticipatory Bail | 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 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 22389 of 2010(W)

PETITIONER(S):

RAVUNNI NAIR,S/O.APPU NAIR,AGED 84 YEARS THARAYIL HOUSE, MUTHUR PO,TIRUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

GOURIKUTTY AMMA,W/O.RAVUNNI NAIR, THARAYIL HOUSE, MUTHUR PO,TIRUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.P.A.RAJESH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM-PIN 676505.

¶15

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUR , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-PIN 676101.

¶16

M.K.SHAJI, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-PIN 676101.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

W.P.(C) No.22389 of 2010-W

¶22

Dated, this the 4^th day of August, 2010

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

K.M.Joseph, J.

¶25

The allegations in this writ petition in brief are as

¶26

follows:

¶27

Petitioners are husband and wife. The Ist petitioner is aged 84 years and the 2^nd petitioner is aged 72 years. They are residing with their daughter and her children at Tirur in Malappuram District. It is stated that petitioners' younger son Sri.Surendran was the Manager of a financial company. It was closed after siphoning off huge amounts from different investors. Some of them approached this Court and criminal cases have been filed including under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The owners are still absconding. Considering all these aspects the Court granted anticipatory bail to their son in cases five in number. Petitioner (Learned counsel for the petitioner submits petitioners' son ) was directed to appear for questioning before

¶28

WPC 22389/2010 -2-

¶29

the investigating officer. Ext.P1 is the certificate. The further complaint of the petitioners in short is that in the intervening night of 14.7.2010 and 15.7.2010 five identifiable policemen who were in uniform under the leadership of the 3^rd respondent came to the house of the petitioners by jumping over the compound wall of the house as the gate was locked and created horrifying scene asking for the son of the petitioners.

¶30

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in all the cases petitioners' son has surrendered and was enlarged on bail. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that in respect of LP NO.64/2010 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Marad Cases), Kozhikode there is no surrender and the warrant has not been executed. The son of the petitioners has not surrendered.

¶31

We called for a report from the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Marad Cases), Kozhikode. The report given by the Court through the Junior Superintendent after

¶32

WPC 22389/2010 -3-

¶33

verification is to the effect that the son of the petitioners has not surrendered before the Court till now.

¶34

Learned Government Pleader would submit that

¶35

petitioners were advised several times to ask their son to appear before the Court. It is submitted that the warrant will be executed in accordance with law. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader and leave the petitioners, if they are so advised, to take appropriate proceedings against any officer who they feel has violated the law.

¶36

(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE.

¶37

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE.

¶38

Ravunni Nair v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravunni Nair v. the Superintendent of Police

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

Franco Poulose Vs State of Kerala

M/S.D.C.Mills (Pvt) Ltd. Vs Vinod Kumar.v.T.

S.Dileep Kumr Vs S.I. of Police and Another

Rani.K.B Vs the Federal Bank Ltd. and Another

Fr.Joy Koothur Vs the Superintendent & Others

Beena T.Daniel Vs the S.I of Police,Pathanamthitta