Allowed

Shanthakumariamma v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC10 Jun 2011WP(C)/11439/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking police protection from respondents involved in civil disputes. The court dismissed objections and converted an interim order of protection into an absolute order, allowing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The interim order directing respondents 1 to 3 (police officials) to afford protection to the petitioner against threats from respondents 4 to 16 was made absolute.

Shanthakumariamma Vs the Deputy Superintendent of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 11439 of 2011(D) ---------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

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

¶8

D.SHANTHAKUMARIAMMA, (AGED 65 YEARS) W/O.LATE SHANKARAN NAIR, VERACKAL VEETTIL, PALLIPURAM MURI, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHERTHALA-688 524.

¶13

2. C.I. OF POLICE, CHERTHALA-688 524.

¶14

3. S.I. OF POLICE, CHERTHALA-688 524.

¶15

4. SRI.CHAKRAPANI, S/O.NARAYANAN, NIKARTHIL VEETTIL, PALLIPURAM MURI, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, PALLIPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN-688 541.

¶16

5. SRI.SUBI, S/O.CHAKRAPANI, OF DO. DO.

¶17

6. SRI.AJI, S/O.CHAKRAPANI, OF DO. DO.

¶18

7. SRI.HARIHARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, OF DO. DO.

¶19

8. SRI.GANGADHARAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, DO. DO.

¶20

W.P.(C). NO.11439/2011-D:

¶21

9. SRI.JAYESH, S/O.GANGADHARAN, OF DO. DO.

¶22

10. SRI.RATHEESH, S/O.GANGADHARAN, OF DO. DO.

¶23

11. SRI.BABU, S/O.AYYAPPAN, PANACHICKAL VEETTIL, PALLIPURAM MURI, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, PALLIPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN-688 541.

¶24

12. SRI.PURUSHAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, OF DO. DO.

¶25

13. SRI.SUNIL, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, OF DO. DO.

¶26

14. SRI.MOHANAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, VATTACHIRA VEETTIL, PALLIPURAM MURI, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, PALLIPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN-688 541.

¶27

15. SRI.SANTHOSH, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, OF DO. DO.

¶28

16. SRI.THULASEEDHARAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, PANCHICKAL VEETTIL, PALLIPURAM MURI, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, PALLIPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN-688 541.

¶29

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.M. CHARISMA, R7, R8, R9, R12, R13, & R16 BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN.

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

W.P.(C). NO.11439/2011-D:

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 06/08/2009 IN W.P.(C).NO.19539/2009.

¶35

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 22/12/2009 IN I.A. NO. 4558/2009 IN O.S. NO. 345/09 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA.

¶36

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR POLICE PROTECTION DTD. 04/04/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.1.

¶37

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT:

¶38

EXT.R7.A: COPY OF THE F.I.R. & F.I.S. CHERTHALA POLICE STATION CRIME NO.478/2011.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 11439 of 2011-D

¶44

------------------------------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2011

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

Basant,J.

¶47

The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 - police officials, to afford protection to the petitioner against apprehended illegal, violent and contumacious conduct on the part of respondents 4 to 16. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has civil disputes with respondents 4 to 16. Certain proceedings are pending before courts also as can be seen from Ext.P2 order passed. According to the petitioner, because of the civil disputes between the parties, respondents 4 to 16, he apprehends, would indulge in contumacious and culpable conduct of threatening her life and person. It is, in these circumstances, that police protection is prayed for.

¶48

Respondents 4 to 16 have been served. Respondents 7 to 9, 12, 13 and 16 alone have appeared before this Court. Their counsel submits that respondents 4 to 16 have no intention whatsoever to pose any threat to the petitioner.

¶49

When this matter came up for hearing on 12/4/11, the

¶50

W.P.(C) No. 11439 of 2011 -: 2 :-

¶51

learned counsel for the petitioner had pressed for an interim order and accordingly the following direction was issued:

¶52

“3. We are satisfied that interim

¶53

direction can be issued solely for the protection of life and person of the petitioner. We make it clear that this order is not to be made use of by the petitioner to claim any relief in respect of any property. We issue interim direction to respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection to the petitioner against any threat to her life or person by respondents 4 to 16. We repeat that it is made clear that this order cannot in any way help the petitioner to claim any relief in respect of property.”

¶54

The learned counsel for the petitioner only prays that the said interim order may now be made absolute. The learned Government Pleader submits that the interim order is being enforced and respondents 1 to 3 are agreeable that the interim order can be made absolute. The respondents, who have entered appearance, do not also raise any objection against the limited interim order.

¶55

We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the said interim order can be made absolute and further proceedings can

¶56

W.P.(C) No. 11439 of 2011 -: 3 :-

¶57

be discontinued.

¶58

In the result:

¶59

(1) This writ petition is allowed.

¶60

(2) The interim order extracted above is made absolute.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

R. BASANT (Judge)

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge)

¶65

Nan/

¶66

//true copy// P.S. to Judge

¶67

W.P.(C) No. 11439 of 2011 -: 4 :-

Shanthakumariamma v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanthakumariamma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Ramachandran Nair Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Jose Kolencherry Vs the Director General of Police

Vijayakumari Vs Superintendent of Police

Krishnakumar.G. Vs Union of India

Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Mills Vs Thrissur District Textile Mazdoor Sangha

Mohamed Yoonus Vs Superintendent of Police