Partly allowed

Anilkumar P.K. v. Circle Inspector of Police and Others

Kerala HC24 Mar 2011WP(C)/5769/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered a writ petition seeking directions for police protection against violence and obstruction of right of way. Finding no active threat and noting the respondents had relocated, the discharge of the interim direction was approved, allowing the petition in part to close proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed in part to close the proceedings; no further specific directions under Article 226 are necessary.

Anilkumar P.K. Vs Circle Inspector of Police and… — 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

THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 5769 of 2009(M) ---------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

ANILKUMAR P.K., AGED 40, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, PULLARIKKUNNEL, PERUMPILLY P.O. PERUMPILLY DESOM, MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY MATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

4. DHARMARAJAN, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, KALAPPURAPARAMBIL, PERUMPILLY P.O. MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶16

5. INDIRA, W/O.DHARMARAJAN, DO. DO. DO.

¶17

6. DHANYA, D/O.DHARMARAJAN, DO. DO. DO.

¶18

7. DIVYA, D/O.DHARMARAJAN, DO. DO. DO.

¶19

svs

¶20

.............2/-...

¶21

...2...

¶22

WPC.NO.5769/2009

¶23

8. ABILASH, MUTHIRAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR VALLAKURISHU, PERUMPILLY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY.

¶24

9. RAJEEVAN, S/O.ANTONY, PULLARIKKUNNEL @ VELAMPARAMBIL, PERUMPILLY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶25

10. RAJI, W/O.CHANDRAN, PULLARIKKUNNEL, DO. DO. DO.

¶26

11. CHANDRAN, PULLERIKKUNNEL, PERUMPILLY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶27

12. ADARSH, S/O.CHANDRAN, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY FATHER CHANDRAN (11TH RESPONDENT), RESIDING AT DO. DO. DO.

¶28

13. ATHIRA, D/O.CHANDRAN, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY FATHER CHANDRAN (11TH RESPONDENT), RESIDING AT DO. DO. DO.

¶29

14. RATHNAMMA, W/O.ANTONY, PULLERIKKUNNEL @ VELAMPARAMBIL, DO. DO. DO.

¶30

15. KAMALAKSHI AMMA, PULLERIKKUNNEL, DO. DO. DO.

¶31

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R4-R6 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE R8,10,11 TO 13 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE R7 BY ADV. SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

svs

¶34

W.P.(C). NO. 5769/2009

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2213/1 OF 2007 DATED 11/06/2007 OF MULANTHURUTHY SUB REGISTRY OFFICE.

¶38

P2: COPY OF THE RECTIPT DATED 15/10/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶39

P3: COPY OF THE ORDEER PLAINT IN O.S.NO.1331/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM, DATED 16/10/2008.

¶40

P4: CP[Y OF THE ORDER ON I.A.NO.8361/2008 IN O.S. NO.1331/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 18/10/2008.

¶41

P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND RECEIPT DATED 06/12/2008 OF THE MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶42

P6: COPY OF THE COMPOAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26/12/2008.

¶43

P7: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.124/2009 OF MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION.

¶44

P8: COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE GOVT. HOSPITAL, MULANTHURUTHY DATED09/02/2009.

¶45

P9: COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GOVT. HOSPITAL, MULANTHURUTHY DATED 10/02/2009.

¶46

P10: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.131/2009 DATED 11/02/2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶47

P11: COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE GOVT. HOSPITAL MULANTHURUTHY.

¶48

P12: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST RESPONDENTS 9. 14 AND 15 BY SOME OF THE PEOPLE BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17/02/2009.

¶49

P13: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17/02/2009 WITH THE RECEIPT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶50

P14: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS REVEALIANG THE CRIMINAL ASSAULT COMMITTED BY RESPONDENTS 4 TO 15.

¶51

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE.

svs

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶56

WPC No.5769 of 2009 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 24^th March, 2011

¶57

JUDGMENT

¶58

Basant, J.

¶59

The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 police officials to afford police protection to the petitioners against culpable, contumacious and violent acts of respondents 4 to 15. All other respondents have been served. Respondent No.15 has not been served. Only the seventh respondent has appeared before Court.

¶60

According to the petitioner, he had purchased the property from fourth and fifth respondents under Ext.P1 deed of sale. A right of way is reserved for the petitioner in Ext.P1 sale deed. Respondents 4 and 5 unjustifiably obstructed the said right of way by putting up a construction. A complaint was filed before the police. It did not evoke any response. A suit was filed by him and an interim order was obtained. Even after the interim

¶61

WPC No.5769/2009 2

¶62

order was passed, there is continued attempt to interfere with the right of way and also to assault and injure the petitioner and relatives. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 20.2.2009.

¶63

When this petition came up for admission on 20.2.2009, the Bench which dealt with the matter, admitted the petition and issued an interim direction,

¶64

“to give protection to the life of the petitioner and family”.

¶65

More than a period of two years has elapsed from the date of the interim order. The matter has not come up for hearing thereafter at all. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the apprehension still survives and the proceedings may be closed by making the interim order absolute.

¶66

The learned counsel for the 7^th respondent submits that the allegations are false and there is no necessity to issue any directions in favour of the petitioner under Article 226. Unable to stand vexation on the part of the petitioner, respondents have shifted residence from

¶67

WPC No.5769/2009 3

¶68

the locality. They are trying to sell the property and go away from that place, submits the learned counsel for the 7^th respondent.

¶69

We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is absolutely no perception of threat for the petitioner now from any of the respondents. Interim orders have remained in force from 20.2.2009. No untoward incident has taken place. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to continue the interim order. Proceedings may be closed, submits the learned Government Pleader.

¶70

We take note of the sequence of events. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We agree with the learned Government Pleader that no further specific directions under Article 226 of the Constitution are necessary in the given circumstances. We take note of and record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if there be any threat to the life or person of the petitioner hereafter, necessary action shall be taken by

¶71

WPC No.5769/2009 4

¶72

the police to abate such threat against the life or person

¶73

of the petitioner and his family.

¶74

This writ petition is accordingly allowed in part.

R.BASANT

JUDGE

K.SURENDRA MOHAN

JUDGE

css/

Anilkumar P.K. v. Circle Inspector of Police and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar P.K. v. Circle 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

Joseph.D.Fernandez Vs State of Kerala

K.Many Vs the District Superintendent of Police

Shanavas and Another Vs State of Kerala

Shabna Afsal and Another Vs the Circle Inspector of Police,Perumbavo

Mohanan Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Others

Leela Das Vs Sub Inspector of Police