Dismissed

Nagendran v. Sub Inspector of Police and Others

Kerala HC25 May 2011WP(C)/9335/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for police protection against threats by a third respondent regarding property disputes. Court accepted government pleader's assurance of necessary police action and dismissed the petition as no specific directions were needed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. No further specific directions are necessary as necessary police action is assured.

Nagendran Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Others — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 9335 of 2011(N) -----------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

NAGENDRAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. T.K.KUTTY, VISHALA BHAVAN, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI- 682 005.

¶13

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI- 682 005.

¶14

3. SIBI, AGED 36 YEARS, CHINGATHAR HOUSE, PUTHENVELIKKARA, NORTH PARUR-683513.

¶15

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

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

tss

¶18

W.P.(C) NO.9335/2010

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

P1:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 16.2.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE IST AND 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

NIL:-

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶28

WPC No.9335 of 2011 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 25^th May, 2011

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Basant, J.

¶31

This petition is for police protection. Protection is claimed by the petitioner for his person and life against threats from the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent was the owner of a property. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent agreed to avail a loan from the bank on the security of the property of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent was to sell and the petitioner was to purchase that property and for that loan was to be availed from the bank. An amount of Rs.8 lakhs was availed from the bank. Document was executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner kept Rs.3 lakhs out of the loan amount. The remaining Rs.5 lakhs was allegedly used by the 3rd respondent. There was default in payment of the amounts due to the bank. The bank has initiated proceedings for recovery. There is imminent

¶32

WPC No.9335/2011 2

¶33

threat of the bank taking over the property in proceedings initiated under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act.

¶34

At this juncture, the third respondent has started threatening and intimidating the petitioner. The third respondent threatens that he will go and occupy the house of the petitioner, if he were thrown out of the house offered as security. It is also threatened that he will do away with the son of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner claims police protection.

¶35

The third respondent has been served. But, there is no appearance of the third respondent.

¶36

The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that no complaint has been received from the petitioner by the police. If the petitioner has any complaint, he can lodge such complaint before respondent No.1. Necessary and needful action shall be taken on such complaint. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 assures the Court that necessary action shall be taken by the police to abate any threat to

¶37

WPC No.9335/2011 3

¶38

the life or person of the petitioner.

¶39

We are satisfied that the submission of the learned Government Pleader can be accepted. No further specific directions are necessary.

¶40

In these circumstances, accepting the submissions

¶41

of the learned Government Pleader, this petition is dismissed.

R.BASANT

JUDGE

K.SURENDRA MOHAN

JUDGE

css/

Nagendran v. Sub Inspector of Police and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendran v. Sub 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahadeva Charitable Trust Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Santha Balachandran Vs the Superintendent of Police

Ramdas Vs Sub Inspector of Police

P.K.Thrivikraman Vs the S.I. of Police

Joseph George @ Jobin Varghese Vs State of Kerala and Others

Ummusalma Vs the State of Kerala