Partly allowed

Kunjahammed v. the Supdt. of Police, Malappuram.

Kerala HC21 Mar 2011WP(C)/4555/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions for police protection against apprehended violence from respondents in a civil property dispute regarding a pathway. The Court held that while the property dispute lies with civil courts, the apprehension of threat to life and person could be addressed through police protection.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 to 3 directed to afford necessary police protection to petitioner and wife against illegal conduct of Respondents 4 to 8.

Kunjahammed Vs the Supdt. of Police, Malappuram. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4555 of 2011(T) -------------------------

¶3

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

¶4

KUNJAHAMMED, S/O.MUHAMMED, PONNAGATHODI HOUSE, ARIPPARA P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PRASAD

¶6

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶7

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505.

¶8

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA CIRCLE OFFICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322.

¶9

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322.

¶10

BASHEER, S/O.MARAKKAR, KONDOTHU HOUSE, THIROORKADU P.O., VALAMPOOR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679325.

¶11

RASHEED ALI, S/O.ABU, THONIKKARA HOUSE, ANGADIPPURAM P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321.

¶12

HAMSAKKUTTY, S/O.MUHAMMED, PULLOOR SHANGATTIL HOUSE, CHERAKKA PARAMPU P.O., ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321.

¶13

ZAKEER HUSSAIN, S/O.ABU, THONIKKARA HOUSE, ANGADIPURAM P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321.

¶14

MUHAMMED, S/O.ABU, THONIKKARA HOUSE, ANGADIPURAM P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321.

¶15

THE ANGADIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT PLEADER: SMT. CHARISMA

¶17

R4 TO R8 BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

¶18

ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. FOR R4 TO 8

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WPC 4555 OF 2011

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 701/1999 OF PERINTHALMANNA S.R.O.DATED 20.02.1999.

¶24

P2: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 702/1999 OF PERINTHALMANNA S.R.O. DATED 20.02.1999.

¶25

P3: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 190/2010 DATED 27.11.2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶26

P4: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 21/2011 OF THE HON'BLE MUNISIFF COURT, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶27

P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01.02.2011.

¶28

P6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 07.02.2011 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

P7: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

**R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *************************

¶34

**W.P(C) No.4555 of 2011-T *******************************

¶35

Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2011

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

BASANT, J.

¶38

The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions to afford protection for the person and life of the petitioner from the apprehended objectionable, contumacious, culpable and violent acts of respondents 4 to 8.

¶39

According to the petitioner, he resides along with his wife. They have property adjacent to the public road. There is no way through the property of the petitioner to the properties behind. But according to the petitioner, some miscreants are attempting to cut open a pathway through the property of the petitioner. They have been partially successful. The petitioner has gone to the civil court claiming directions. In the course of arguments before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner categorically states that no relief with respect to the property is claimed by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. But according to the petitioner, there is now threat to the life and person of the petitioner and his wife from respondents 4 to 8. They are

¶40

W.P(C) No.4555 of 2011-T

¶41

¶42

infuriated against the petitioner and his wife for the reason that the petitioner and his wife have attempted to resist the attempts of respondents 4 to 8 to cut a pathway through their property. With the demand that the suit be withdrawn and the resistance of the petitioner be avoided, the petitioner and his wife are being vexed and harassed. They are not able to live peacefully in their house. In these circumstances, it is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection for the life and person of the petitioner. No relief in respect of the property is necessary, but the petitioner's life may be protected, it is prayed.

¶43

Respondents 4 to 6 have entered appearance. According to them, they have no intention to cut open a pathway through the petitioner's property. They have absolutely no intention to cause any harm to the life or person of the petitioner. The other party respondents 7 and 8, though served, have not chosen to enter appearance. The 9^th respondent Grama Panchayat is arrayed as a party by the petitioner for the purpose of getting its confirmation that there is no public pathway through the property of the petitioner.

¶44

W.P(C) No.4555 of 2011-T

¶45

¶46

The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 asserts that respondents 4 to 6 have no intention to cause any harm to the life or person of the petitioner.

¶47

We turned to the learned Government Pleader for response of respondents 1 to 3. The learned Government Pleader asserts that in the perception of the police officials, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. If there be any threat to the life or person of the petitioner and his wife, necessary police protection shall be afforded to them, it is asserted by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.

¶48

We do not intend to express any opinion on the existence or otherwise of a pathway through the petitioner's property. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that dispute about the existence or otherwise of a pathway through the property of the petitioner will have to be resolved in the civil proceedings that have already been initiated. We find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner apprehends threat to his life and person from persons who do not allegedly want the petitioner to assert his

¶49

W.P(C) No.4555 of 2011-T

¶50

¶51

civil right over his property. Prayer can be granted to that limited extent.

¶52

This Writ Petition, we are satisfied, can be allowed and appropriate directions can be issued for the protection of the life of the petitioner and his wife.

¶53

In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed in part;

¶54

b) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to afford necessary and adequate police protection to the life and person of petitioner and his wife against any illegal contumacious, culpable or violent conduct on the part of respondents 4 to 8.

¶55

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶56

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶57

rtr/

Kunjahammed v. the Supdt. of Police, Malappuram.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjahammed v. the Supdt. 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

Sivaji Jaganathan Vs the Director General of Police

Wilson Janis Vs State of Kerala and 4 Others

Sharafudeen Vs the Supdt.of Police and Others

Fathima Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Others

R.Sasikumar Vs Circle Inspector of Police

K.M.Abdul Jabbar Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police