Petitioners sought directions for police protection against alleged assault by neighbors. Respondents provided an undertaking of non-violence, and police assured action. The Court found no real apprehension of danger and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933
WP(C).No. 7399 of 2011(Y)
-------------------------------------PETITIONER(S):
2. SHEEBA, W/O.SHANAVAS, S.N.MANZIL, POLICE MUKKU, KATTUPURAM, PULIMATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,ATTINGAL-695 101.
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA-695 014.
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
5. BADSHAD, SHINI MANZIL, KATTUPRAM, PULIMATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 014.
6. JUMAILA, W/O.BADSHAD, SHINI MANZIL, KATTUPURAM, PULIMATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 014.
R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R6 BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
WPC.NO.7399/2011 Y
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------WPC No.7399 of 2011
------------------------------------------Dated this the 23rd March, 2011
JUDGMENT
Basant, J.
The petitioners - spouses, have come before this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 2 to 4, police officials under the first respondent State, to afford protection to the petitioners from the culpable and violent conduct of respondents 5 and 6.
WPC No.7399/2011 2
respondent No.5 is a person employed abroad and he is not available in India now. The assertion that the petitioners apprehend danger from the fifth respondent who is not available in India and the sixth respondent who is a woman, is without any merit whatsoever. The real dispute has been suppressed. False allegations are conveniently made in this writ petition. As a matter of fact, the genesis of the dispute is totally different. When respondent No.5 was employed abroad, one Jalaludheen, the brother of the sixth respondent was also there. The said Jalaludheen was running a company. According to the sixth respondent, the said Jalaludheen owed amounts to the sixth respondent. When both were in India, fifth respondent demanded return of money from Jalaludheen. Jalaludheen, the brother of the sixth respondent is the nephew of the first petitioner. To oblige Jalaludheen, false assertions and allegations are being raised by the petitioners. It may be recorded that respondent No.6 undertakes on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 that they shall not indulge in any contumacious, culpable or violent conduct against the petitioners. In fact, respondents 5 and 6 apprehend danger from the petitioners and the said Jalaludheen. Complaints have already been made before the police. Crimes have been registered. In these circumstances, it
WPC No.7399/2011 3
is absolutely unnecessary to issue any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter in favour of the petitioners now. It may be ensured that the sixth respondent faces no danger from the petitioners and the said Jalaludheen, submits the learned counsel for the sixth respondent.
WPC No.7399/2011 4
undertaking of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 2 to 4. We are satisfied in these circumstances that the petitioners cannot be said to have any real or reasonable apprehension from the sixth respondent, a woman who is available in India and the fifth respondent who has already left the country for his place of employment abroad. We accept the undertaking of the learned Government Pleader that necessary action shall be taken to ensure law and order. No further directions are necessary.
R.BASANT JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE
css/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners have a reasonable apprehension of danger from the respondents given the undertaking provided.
Whether specific directions under Article 226 of the Constitution are necessary in the circumstances of the case.
SHANAVAS
SHEEBA
STATE OF KERALA
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR
RBASANT
K.SURENDRA MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
