Disposed

K.T.Muhammed Ali @ Bava Haji v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC5 Aug 2010WP(C)/22766/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought directions to the police to protect him and his family from retaliatory threats by the opposing parties. The court recorded that an interim order had already been passed and the opposing parties affirmed they had no intention to cause harm.

What did the court decide?

Direction was issued that in case of any threat to the life of the petitioner, his wife and children from respondents 3 and 4, the second respondent shall afford protection.

K.T.Muhammed Ali @ Bava Haji Vs the… — 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 & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932

¶4

WP(C).No. 22766 of 2010(U) --------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

¶7

K.T.MUHAMMED ALI @ BAVA HAJI, S/O.BEERANKUTTY,KOTHANGATH THAYYIL HOUSE, PANANGATTUR, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

¶11

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN 676 101.

¶12

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUR POLICE STATION,TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN 676 302.

¶13

THAYYAMPADI HAMZA,S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, KANNANTHALA, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN 676 302.

¶14

MANSOOR,S/O.HAMZA,THAYYAMPADI HOUSE, KANNANTHALA, TANUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN 676 302

¶15

GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI. T K VIPINDAS FOR R1&2 ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER FOR R4 SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R4

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 22766 of 2010(U)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DT.11.7.2010.

¶21

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.11.7.2010.

¶22

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT.31.7.10

¶23

EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.13.7.2010.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶25

// TRUE COPY //

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

W.P.(C).No. 22766 of 2010 U

¶29

¶30

Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Joseph, J.

¶33

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate, effective and meaningful protection to the petitioner and his family from any threat from the side of respondents 3 and 4 and men acting under them.

¶34

We have already passed an interim order.

¶35

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶36

counsel for the party respondents and the learned Government Pleader.

¶37

Respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that respondents 3 and 4 have filed a crime against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application for anticipatory bail was filed and the

¶38

W.P.(C).No. 22766 of 2010

¶39

petitioner was directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer, subject to certain conditions.

¶40

In view of the nature of apprehension, without going into the

¶41

merits and without pronouncing on the correctness of the allegations raised by the petitioner, we dispose of the Writ Petition recording the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 that they have no intention to cause any threat to the petitioner. We direct that in case there is any threat to the life of the petitioner, his wife and children from respondents 3 and 4, which is brought to the notice of the second respondent, the second respondent shall afford protection to the life of the petitioner, his wife and children. We make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of further proceedings, including investigation of the crime.

¶42

Judge

¶43

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge

¶44

K.T.Muhammed Ali @ Bava Haji v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T.Muhammed Ali @ Bava Haji v. the Deputy 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

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

Fr.Joy Koothur Vs the Superintendent & Others

Ravunni Nair Vs the Superintendent of Police

Ismayil.v Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ismail Vs Circle Inspector of Police, Kodungallur

Harish Bal Vs C.I. of Police