Allowed

Sudheer v. Circle Inspector of Police

Kerala HC14 Mar 2011WP(C)/6201/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition partly, directing the Circle Inspector and Sub Inspector of Police at Varkala to afford protection to the petitioner for his life and person against apprehended threats from his wife, her cousin, and an alleged illicit partner, utilizing police undertakings rather than substantive directions.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 and 2 directed to afford protection for the life and person of the petitioner.

Sudheer Vs Circle Inspector of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | 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

MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 6201 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

SUDHEER, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, KATTIL VEEDU, ASSANMUKKU DESOM, VETTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION, VARKALA-695 141.

¶13

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION, VARKALA-695 141.

¶14

3. SUNIJA, D/O.MUHAMMED MANI, NASEEMA MANZIL, ASSANMUKKU DESOM, VETTOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 141.

¶15

4. SEENA, EZHUVILA VEEDU, VETTOOR PO, ASSANMUKKU DESOM, VETTOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695 141.

¶16

5. SHIBU, KUNJAZHIKONE HOUSE, VETTOOR P.O., VARKALA-695 141.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

tss

¶20

W.P.(C) NO.6201/2011

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

P1:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

P2:- COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT. P3:- COMPLAINT DTD. 18.2.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

NIL:-

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE

tss

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶30

WPC No.6201 of 2011

¶31

Dated this the 14^th March, 2011

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Basant, J.

¶34

The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 police officials against illegal, contumacious and violent acts indulged in and apprehended from respondents 3 to 5.

¶35

According to the petitioner, the third respondent was his wife. He has already dissolved marriage with the third respondent in accordance with law. The fourth respondent is a cousin of the third respondent. The fifth respondent is a person with whom the third respondent is allegedly having illicit relationship. Respondents 3 to 5 are attempting to vex and harass the petitioner. They have taken law into their hands and are indulging in violent, contumacious and culpable conduct against the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for police protection.

¶36

WPC No.6201/2011 2

¶37

According to the petitioner, the house of the petitioner has been put on fire and about this, complaint has been made to the police. Police is guilty of inaction and it is in these circumstances that the prayer in this petition is made.

¶38

Respondents 3 to 5 though served have not chosen to enter appearance. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that according to respondents 3 to 5, there has been no valid divorce of the third respondent by the petitioner. The petitioner, even while the marriage with the third respondent subsists in law, is having an illicit relationship with another woman. He is residing with the said woman. The third respondent and her relatives have raised objections against such illegal and illicit relationship between the petitioner and the said woman. Only to vex and harass them, false allegations are made against respondents 3 to 5. This is the stand of respondents 3 to 5 as ascertained by the police officials, submits the learned Government Pleader.

¶39

WPC No.6201/2011 3

¶40

The learned Government Pleader submits that

¶41

Crime No.280 of 2011 of Varkala Police Station has been registered at the instance of the petitioner. The brother of the third respondent, who is not arrayed as a party in this writ petition along with some others, is an accused in that case. In the perception of respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner faces no threat to his person or life from respondents 3 to 5. However, the learned Government Pleader undertakes that respondents 1 and 2 shall take necessary steps, if there be any threat posed against the life or person of the petitioner. No directions under Article 226 need be issued in these circumstances, submits the learned Government Pleader.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registration of the crime indicates that the apprehension of the petitioner is reasonable. Other disputes between the petitioner and the third respondent shall be resolved in accordance with law, but pending resolution of such dispute, threat to the life of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has divorced the third respondent may be abated, submits the learned

¶43

WPC No.6201/2011 4

¶44

counsel for the petitioner.

¶45

We have considered all the relevant inputs. We have heard the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. We are in these circumstances satisfied that this petition can be allowed to the limited extent of affording protection to the life and person of the petitioner.

¶46

This petition is accordingly allowed in part. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford protection for the life and person of the petitioner. Whenever threats are apprehended, the petitioner may complain to respondents 1 and 2 who shall afford necessary protection for him.

¶47

R.BASANT

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶50

css/

Sudheer v. Circle Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheer v. Circle Inspector of Police

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

The Secretary, Kannamangalam West Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Satheesan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Karunagappa

Pothen Thomas Vs Dy.Supdt.of Police

C.M.Narayanan Vs C.G.Babu

July Sumaraj Vs Director General of Police

Shalini Umesh Kumar Vs the Deputy Superitend of Police