Dismissed

Saju Thomas v. the Sub Inspector of Police and Others

Kerala HC9 Mar 2011WP(C)/1330/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions to police to prevent harm by his brothers in a property dispute. Court dismissed the petition after accepting respondent brothers' assurance of no intention to cause harm, but noted that appropriate police action would be taken if a threat materialized.

What did the court decide?

No further directions necessary; petition dismissed with observations that police will act if threat arises.

Saju Thomas Vs the Sub Inspector of Police and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 1330 of 2011(M)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

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

¶8

SAJU THOMAS, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, KORAKKATTUKUNNEL, KORUTHODU (PO), MUNDAKKAYAM, KOTTAYAM-686 513.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL

¶10

SRI.N.M.MADHU

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION, MUNDAKKAYAM-686 513.

¶14

2. THE DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 507.

¶15

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶16

4. K.T.JOSEPH @ THANKACHAN, AGED 52, S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT KARAKKATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, KORUTHODU P.O., PIN-686 513, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶17

5. K.T.DEVASIA @ BABU, AGED 49 YEARS,

¶18

S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT KARAKKATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, KORUTHODU P.O., PIN-686 513, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶19

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R4 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

...2/-

¶23

WP(C).No. 1330 of 2011(M)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶26

EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.3.2010 IN O.S. 56/2008 AND O.S.27/2009 OF THE SUB COURT, PALAI.

¶27

EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO EXT.P2.

¶29

EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.12.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶35

------------------------------------------WPC No.1330 of 2011

¶36

------------------------------------------Dated this the 9^th March, 2011

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Basant, J.

¶39

The petitioner has come to this Court with this

¶40

petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3, police officials against any illegal, violent and contumacious acts committed or apprehended from respondents 4 and 5.

¶41

The petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 are brothers. Their father executed a settlement deed. The petitioner claims rights under the said settlement deeds. Respondents 4 and 5 allegedly challenged the said settlement deed. The parties are already before the civil court and two streams of litigation are there. Respondents 4 and 5 have lost in the first round of litigation. Appeals are pending. No interim orders have been passed in the appeal.

¶42

At this juncture, the petitioner has come to this Court raising the apprehension that his life and person are in danger and respondents 4 and 5, his brothers may harm his life and person.

¶43

Respondents 4 and 5 have entered appearance.

¶44

wpc No.1330/2011 2

¶45

They accept that there are civil disputes between them and the petitioner. But, it is asserted that they have absolutely no intention to cause any threat to the life or person of the petitioner. The petitioner is attempting to steal a march over respondents 4 and 5 by raising the bogie of harm to life and person. The attempt is to secure some orders and use the same in the civil proceedings against respondents 4 and 5. Respondents have no intention to cause any harm to the life or person of the petitioner. Appropriate orders may be passed, but such orders may not be permitted to be used in the civil litigation between the parties.

¶46

We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions from respondents 1 to 3, asserts that in the perception of respondents 1 to 3, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. If there be any such threat against the life or person of the petitioner from respondents 4 and 5, necessary action shall be taken by respondents 1 to 3 to abate such threat/possibility of harm against the life and person of the petitioner. In these circumstances, no further specific directions are necessary, submits the

¶47

wpc No.1330/2011 3

¶48

learned Government Pleader.

¶49

Parties were referred by this Court for mediation.

¶50

Failure report has been received from the mediator.

¶51

We are not satisfied that any specific directions are

¶52

necessary in the light of the stand taken by respondents 4 and 5 through their counsel and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. We accept the submission of respondents 4 and 5 that they shall not cause any harm or threat against the life and person of the petitioner. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 that if there be any such threat, necessary action shall be taken by the police to abate such threat. No further directions are necessary. In these circumstances, this petition is dismissed with the above observations.

¶53

R.BASANT

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶56

css/

Saju Thomas v. the Sub Inspector of Police and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saju Thomas v. the Sub Inspector of Police and Others

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

Biju Kumar Vs Vasu

Nizarudheen Vs the Superintendent of Police & 3 Ors.

Dr.Radha Mohan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Karthikeyan.S Vs State of Kerala and Others

The Secretary and Another Vs Mr.Nasar.P and Others

Joseph S/O. Kurian Vs Damodaran and 5 Others