Dismissed

Vijayalakshmi v. Superintendent of Police,Malappuram

Kerala HC11 Nov 2010WP(C)/32425/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking police protection from respondents 5 to 9. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Circle Inspector for protection against the specific accused involved in the crime and noted no threat from respondents 1 to 4.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the 3rd respondent (Circle Officer) for protection against respondents 5 to 9; writ against respondents 1 to 4 dismissed.

Vijayalakshmi Vs Superintendent of Police,Malappuram — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶4

WP(C).No. 32425 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S): -----------------------

¶6

VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.VASU VENNOOPARAMBIL, THRIKKANDIYUR AMSOM, VADAKKE ANNARA, THIROOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶7

BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

--------------------------

¶10

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.PIN- 676 012.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.PIN- 676 012.

¶12

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.PIN- 676 012.

¶13

4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM.PIN- 676 012.

¶14

5. ANEESH, S/O.KAPPALPADY BALAKRISHNAN, NORTH ANNARA, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM.676 121.

¶15

6. LATHEESH, S/O.KAPPALPADY BALAKRISHNAN, NORTH ANNARA, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM.676 121.

¶16

7. MUKESH, S/O.PUTHIYAKATHPADY THAMI, NORTH ANNARA, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM.676 121.

¶17

8. PRASANTH, S/O.PUTHIYAKATHPADY THAMI, NORTH ANNARA, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM.676 121.

¶18

9. LAKSHMI, D/O.PUTHIYAKATHPADY THAMI, NORTH ANNARA, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM.676 121.

¶19

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. CHARISMA

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

sts

¶22

WP(C) NO. 32425/2010

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶25

P1 COPY OF THE F.I.R. NO. 1095 DATED 04/12/2009 REGISTERED IN THE TIRUR POLICE STATION.

¶26

P2 COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.1126/2009 OF THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, MANJERI.

¶27

P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09/09/2010.

¶28

P4 COPY OF THE A/D CARD ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/06/2010.

¶29

P5 COPY OF THE A/D CARD ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16/09/2010.

¶30

P6 COPY OF THE A/D CARD ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16/09/2010.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

**K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.32425 of 2010

¶37

Dated this the 11^th day of November 2010

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

K.M.JOSEPH,J

¶40

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶41

i) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction, commanding the Respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and her family members.

¶42

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

¶43

Crime No.901/2009 is pending against the petitioner's

¶44

husband and their sons in the Tirur police station for the offences punishable under Section 120(B)(1) and 302 read with 149 I.P.C. The allegation is that the petitioner's husband and their sons along with some others murdered one Pradeep on 13/10/2009. The petitioner's case is that her husband and their children are innocent. The petitioner's husband and their children were released on bail and the police, knowing that the petitioner's family faces threat to their life, was providing protection to them from the date of incident. It is their case that from 15/8/2010, police withdrew the protection. It is their

¶45

¶46

W.P.C.No.32425 of 2010

¶47

further case that the party respondents started committing mischief in the property of the petitioner by way of destroying the yielding in the property and also filling the septic tank with mud. Apart from that, the party respondents trespassed into the petitioner's property and threatened to kill her husband and sons. At present, they cannot move out of their house.

¶48

We have already passed an interim order. Though served, there is no appearance for the party respondents. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader would submit that, as of now, there is no threat.

¶49

We dispose of the writ petition as follows: If there is any threat to the lives as complained, it is open to seek protection as against respondents 5 to 9 before the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent, in such an eventuality, will look into the complaint and will provide protection to the life of the complainant, her husband and two sons as against respondents 5 to 9.

¶50

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶51

jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge

¶52

W.P.C.No.32425 of 2010 3

¶53

W.P.C.No.32425 of 2010 4

¶54

¶55

W.P.C.No.32425 of 2010

¶56

K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.

¶57

.No. of 200

¶58

ORDER/JUDGMENT

¶59

30/082010

Vijayalakshmi v. Superintendent of Police,Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayalakshmi v. Superintendent of Police,Malappuram

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

Stella Antony Vs the Superintendent of Police,Kollam

Saraswathy.S Vs Lakshmi Thirumalai

Bindu Vs P.Krishnan Asary

Preethi Jojo Vs Sub Inspector and Others

Dr.Khevna Ravisankar Pujari Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Sajikumar Vs State of Kerala & Others