Disposed

Mohammed.K.a. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Sept 2013WP(C)/21652/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached the writ court claiming harassment by police regarding a monetary dispute where no enquiry was pending. The court, noting no pending investigation and lack of police intent to proceed, directed that the petitioner shall not be harassed and closed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the petitioner shall not be harassed on the complaint made by the 3rd respondent and the writ petition was closed.

Mohammed.K.a. Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/20TH BHADRA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 21652 of 2013 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER :

¶7

MOHAMMED.K.A.

¶8

S/O. ABDUL KHADER, KOCHUVEETTIL, P.O.CHALINGAD KAIPPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.

¶13

3. NIZAR

¶14

S/O. KUNJU MOHAMMED, MATHILAKATHU VEETTIL P.O.CHALINGADU, KAIPPAMANGALAM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK THRISSUR-680 001.

¶15

R BY SRI. MOHAMMED SHAH - SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

acd

¶18

ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D. RAJAN, JJ.

¶19

W.P.(C)No.21652 of 2013

¶20

Dated this the 11^th day of September, 2013

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

ANTONY DOMINIC,J.

¶23

According to the petitioner, on a complaint made by the 3^rd respondent, claiming that certain amount is due from him, the 2^nd respondent is harassing him. It is therefore that he has filed this writ petition seeking appropriate orders.

¶24

The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that a complaint was received from the 3^rd respondent and that as part of the enquiry, although the petitioner was summoned, he did not appear before the Police. It is stated that on revealing that the dispute is a monetary one, the Police do not intend to proceed with the complaint.

¶25

Evidently therefore, there is no enquiry pending against the petitioner. If that be so, there is no reason to summon the petitioner again.

¶26

Therefore, recording the submissions made by the learned

¶27

W.P.(C)No.21652/13

¶28

¶29

Government Pleader and directing that the petitioner shall not be harassed on the complaint made by the 3^rd respondent, this writ petition is closed

¶30

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶31

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶32

acd

¶33

W.P.(C)No.21652/13 3

Mohammed.K.a. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed.K.a. v. State of Kerala

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

Waves Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs Jose Vincent

K. Remya Vs Dr. Elangovan

Hill Top Crusher Unit Vs Sri.Binu Francis

Ampily Vs S.I of Police, Kayamkulam

M/S.Wood Planet Industries Vs State of Kerala

Jess Mathew Vs Joshy Abraham