Allowed

C.a.Salomy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Apr 2013WP(C)/7119/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined a writ petition for protection against threats by the 5th respondent. Allowing the prayer, the Court directed the 4th respondent to investigate complaints of threats and afford protection if genuine, while clarifying that pending criminal cases remain untrammeled.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to look into complaints of threat and afford protection to the petitioner's life if the threat is found genuine.

C.a.Salomy Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2013/13TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶6

WP(C).No. 7119 of 2013 (L)

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

C.A.SALOMY, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. ANTONY, PRATHEEKSHA HOUSE, KOTTATHARA P.O., MANNARKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.T.B.MINI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶12

2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, AGALI, PALAKKAD 678 581.

¶13

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AGALI, PALAKKAD 678 581.

¶14

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHOLAYAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 581.

¶15

5. N.R. GEORGE,, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. RAPPAI, KUTTIKATTU NEYYAN HOUSE, AROGYAMATHAI JUNCTION, KOTTATHARA P.O, PALAKKAD 678 581.

¶16

R1 TO R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER R5 BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU,S

¶17

SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Kss

¶20

WPC.NO.7119/2013 L

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1: COPY OF THE FIR OF CRIME NO.335/12 OF SHOLAYAR POLICE STATION.

¶24

P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD. 20/12/2012.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

WP(C).No. 7119 of 2013 (L)

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶32

EXHIBT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR CRIME NO 335/12 OF SHOLAYAR POLICE STATION

¶33

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTED SUBMITTED BY THE PETITION BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 20-12-2012

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶35

K.M.JOSEPH & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶36

-----------------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.7119 of 2013

¶37

----------------------------------------Dated, this the 3^rd day of April, 2013

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

K.M.Joseph, J.

¶40

The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:

¶41

“issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the 4^th respondent to give protection to the life and safety of the petitioner.”

¶42

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

¶43

The petitioner was cheated by the 5^th respondent promising to marry her. He utilized her and forcibly had transferred her property in his name and had taken a lot of money from her account. He cheated her and had thrown away from the house. Now she is residing alone. Petitioner filed complaint against the 5^th respondent. FIR No.335/12 of Sholayar Police Station was registered. Petitioner filed petition before the Magistrate Court under prevention of Domestic Violence against women. Now the 5^th respondent and his henchmen are threatening to kill the petitioner if she does not withdraw the case. Petitioner filed Ext.P1 and other representation before the 4^th respondent. The 3^rd and 4^th respondents are duty bound to give proper and effective protection to the life of the petitioner. There is inaction. Hence, the petition.

¶44

W.P.(C) No.7119 of 2013

¶45

¶46

We heard the learned counsel for the parties including the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the 5^th respondent would submit that, the 5^th respondent has not threatened and he has no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. He only submits that, criminal case filed by the petitioner against the 5^th respondent is pending. We record the submission of the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent that the 5^th respondent has no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. Besides recording the said submission, we direct that, if the petitioner complains to the 4^th respondent of any threat to her life from the 5^th respondent, the 4^th respondent will look into the complaint, and, if the threat is found to be genuine, he will afford protection to the life of the petitioner as against the 5^th respondent as and when required. We make it clear that, Crime Nos.335/12 and 25/13 will be investigated in accordance with law untrammelled by this judgment.

¶47

(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE.

¶48

( K.RAMAKRISHNAN) JUDGE.

¶49

C.a.Salomy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.a.Salomy 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

M/S.Indus Towers Ltd. Vs the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram

G.Valsalakumari Vs Circle Inspector of Police

K.S.Mohanan Pillai Vs the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta

Narayanan Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.v.Raju Vs State of Kerala

K.Devan Vs the District Superintendent of Police, Palakkad