Dismissed

Rathidevi v. Saradamma

Kerala HC6 Jun 2011WP(C)/7967/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought police protection under Article 226 due to a boundary dispute and alleged misconduct by the first respondent. The High Court found merit in the submission that neither party required immediate protection as complaints could be filed at the police station.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no specific directions for police protection issued.

Rathidevi Vs Saradamma — 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

¶3

MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 7967 of 2011(U) --------------------------------------

¶4

PETITIONER(S):

¶5

----------------------RATHIDEVI, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.ANIL RADHAKRISHNAN, "GEETHAM", ARINKODU WARD, THALAVOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.T.K.SANDEEP SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.ANEISH RAVINDRA SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE(MULLAKKARIYIL) SRI.K.RATHISH KUMAR

¶7

RESPONDENT(S):

¶8

------------------------1. SARADAMMA, MANIKAND VILASAM, ARINGODE WARD, THALAVOOR POND VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM. 691 514.

¶9

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNIKODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 691 508.

¶10

3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 691 001.

¶11

*ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED.

¶12

4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

*ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 16.3.2011 IN IA.4761/2011.

¶14

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SRI.K.SURESH BABU (PUNALUR). R2 & R3 & ADDL. R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.PUSHPALATHA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) NO.7967/2011

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶19

P1:- COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DTD. 16.2.2011. P1(a):- COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DT. 14.2.2011. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 16.2.2011.

¶20

P2 SERIES:- COPY OF THE EMAIL COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶22

R1(a):- COPY OF THE OS. NO.18/2011.

¶23

R1(b):- COPY OF THE IA. NO.141/2011 ALONG WITH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD. 29.1.2011.

¶24

R1(c):- COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE WOMEN'S COMMISSION.

¶25

R1(d):- COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE SUB INS[PECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNIKODE.

¶26

R1(e):- COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.137/2011.

¶27

R1(f):- COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, PUNALUR.

¶28

R1(g):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CMP. 769/2011 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,PUNALUR.

¶29

R1(h):- COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 15.2.2011 FILED B THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶30

R1(i):- COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DTD. 16.2.2011 IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY.

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶35

------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 7967 of 2011-U

¶36

------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2011

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Basant,J.

¶39

The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 2 and 3 to afford police protection for the petitioner against illegal, culpable and contumacious conduct on the part of the 1^st respondent.

¶40

According to the petitioner, she resides along with her children in a residential building adjacent to the property of the 1^st respondent. The petitioner's husband is employed abroad. There are disputes between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent about the boundary separating their properties. A civil suit has already been filed by the 1^st respondent. A cross-suit has been filed by the father of the petitioner. Interim orders have also

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 7967 of 2011 -: 2 :-

¶42

been obtained from the civil court.

¶43

Because of the animosity arising from the civil dispute, the 1^st respondent is allegedly indulging in contumacious and culpable conduct against the petitioner. Police are not taking proper action. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution.

¶44

The 1^st respondent has entered appearance. According to the 1^st respondent, the boot is on the other leg. She is residing along with her 80 year old mother. She is a woman aged 58 years. According to the 1^st respondent, the petitioner herein is guilty of improper and culpable behaviour. The 1^st respondent is at the receiving end. She had gone to the civil court and obtained an interim order. But in spite of that, the petitioner is indulging in illegal, contumacious and culpable conduct. The 1^st respondent deserves to be protected against the improper conduct and action on the part of the petitioner. In these circumstances, no directions against the 1^st respondent may be issued. Protection may be afforded to the 1^st respondent against the illegal and culpable conduct of the petitioner herein.

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 7967 of 2011 -: 3 :-

¶46

This, in short, is the contention of the 1^st respondent.

¶47

The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions from respondents 2 to 4, submits that there is a bitter boundary dispute between the parties. A crime has been registered against the petitioner. Another has been registered against the 1^st respondent. Notwithstanding the interim orders passed by the civil court, parties are not able to live in peace. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is absolutely no necessity to issue any specific directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to afford protection either to the petitioner or to the 1^st respondent. If either has a grievance in future, they can prefer complaints before the 2^nd respondent who shall take appropriate and necessary action in accordance with law. In these circumstances, no specific directions need be issued, submits the learned Government Pleader.

¶48

We have considered all the relevant inputs. We find merit in the submission of the learned Government Pleader that neither party deserves to be armed with an order of police protection now. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if either the petitioner or the 1^st

¶49

W.P.(C) No. 7967 of 2011 -: 4 :-

¶50

respondent has a grievance against the other, they shall be at liberty to file a complaint before the 2^nd respondent who shall thereupon take necessary action in accordance with law.

¶51

Accepting the submissions of the learned Government

¶52

Pleader, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

R. BASANT (Judge)

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge)

¶57

Nan/

¶58

//true copy// P.S. to Judge

¶59

W.P.(C) No. 7967 of 2011 -: 5 :-

¶60

R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶61

------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 7967 of 2011

¶62

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2011

¶63

ORDER

¶64

I.A. No.4761/11:

¶65

Heard. Allowed. Additional R4 is impleaded.

¶66

I.A.No.4759/11:

¶67

Heard. Allowed. Carry out the correction.

¶68

W.P.(c) No.7967/11:

¶69

Heard. Admitted. Notice given and the learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 2 and 3. Issue notice to respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is accordingly permitted to take out notice to respondent No.1 by special messenger. Verify service and call again on 23/3/2011.

¶70

W.P.(C) No. 7967 of 2011 -: 6 :-

¶71

R. BASANT (Judge)

¶72

K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge)

¶73

Nan/

Rathidevi v. Saradamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathidevi v. Saradamma

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

T.N.Vijayan and Another Vs Union of India

Shaji Mathew Vs the S.I.of Police, Kurathikad

Gtl Infrastructure Limited Vs State of Kerala and Others

C.N.MUTHUKRISHNAN,H.NO.4029,BANGALORE Vs C.G.Babu,Chamakkad House,Palakkad

Muhammed Sali Vs District Superintendent of Police and

Aseela Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Chadayamang