The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking police protection. It directed the third respondent to investigate complaints of threats and afford protection if the threat is found genuine.
Directions issued to the third respondent (Sub Inspector) to investigate threats and afford protection if found genuine.
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 K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2013/13TH CHAITHRA 1935
WP(C).No. 7696 of 2013 (J)
PETITIONER :
NARAYANAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.ARJUNAN ACHARI SIVASADANAM, CHERUVALLOORE KOLLAKADAVU P.O., CHERIANADU VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA
RESPONDENT(S) :
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALLEPPEY -688 001
2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHENGANNUR -689 509.
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DIST - 689 509.
4. PARAMESWARAN P.G., 64 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, PALLITHEKKETHIL VENMANI PO., VENMANI, CHENGANNURE - 689 509.
5. RAJAMMA, AGED 57 YEARS,
6. PRADEEP, S/O.PARAMESWARAN P.G. PALLITHEKKETHIL, VENMANI PO., VENMANI CHENGANNURE - 689 509.
7. SIVAPRASAD, S/O.KESAVAN
...2/-
WP(C).No. 7696 of 2013 (J) -2-
8. SATHEESH K.M. KUDUNNAL VEEDU, CHERUVALLOORE MURI KOLLAKADAVU, CHENGANNURE - 689 509.
9. SANTHOSH K.M. KUDUNNAL VEEDU, CHERUVALLOORE MURI KOLLAKADAVU, CHENGANNURE - 689 509.
10. SAJITH K.M., KUDUNNAL VEEDU, CHERUVALLOORE MURI KOLLAKADAVU, CHENGANNURE - 689 509. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.A. MOHAMMED SHAH
R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
WP(C).No. 7696 of 2013 (J)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT-P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY DATED 20-4-2012.
EXHIBIT-P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY DATED 16-2-2013. EXHIBIT-P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DATED 31-7-2012.
EXHIBIT-P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 DATED 12-3-2013.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R5(a) COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 28-2-2013 ISSUED BY SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, CHERIYANAD.
EXHIBIT R5(b) COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 626/2012 OF CHERIYANAD SUB REGISTRY.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
K.M.JOSEPH & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.7696 of 2013 ----------------------------------------Dated, this the 3rd day of April, 2013
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following
reliefs:
“i) to issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and family on the basis of Exhibit P4 complaint.
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider Exhibit P4.”
Petitioner has purchased 10 cents of property ( Sy.No.267/3, 267/4) in Block No.14 of Venmani Village, Chengannur taluk as per Deed No.626/2012 from respondents 4 and 5 on 19.3.2012. Exts.P1 and P2 are the tax receipts of the property. The location sketch of the property is
W.P.(C) No.7696 of 2013 2
Ext.P3. Petitioner informed the respondents 4 to 6 that the petitioner is ready to remove the charges of the 2nd property to the above deed. The respondents 4 to 6 have to clear that there will not be any further attachments or claims by any of the persons related to respondents 4 to 6. After the execution of the above deed the property was attached by the Family Court to recover the amount from respondents 4 to 6 in connection with the disputes between the daughter-in-law of the respondents 4 to 6 and thereafter subsequent attachments and claims was made in the above property by the debtors of respondents 4 to 6. petitioner made complaints before the Circle Inspector of police, Chengannur against respondents 4 to 10 to stop the threat against the petitioner and family who called a meeting of the petitioner and respondents, came to an agreement that respondents will not make any threat or issues towards the petitioner and family. Petitioner then filed a complaint before respondents 1 and 2 on 12.3.2013, the copy of the same was given to the Director General of Police, Kerala against the threat of the respondents 4 to 10. Hence, the petition for police protection. A counter affidavit is filed by the 5th respondent.
If the petitioner complains of any threat to his life from respondents 4 to 10 before the third respondent, the third respondent will look into the
W.P.(C) No.7696 of 2013
3
complaint, and, if it is found to be genuine, he shall afford protection for the
life of the petitioner as against respondents 4 to 10 as and when required.
(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE.
( K.RAMAKRISHNAN) JUDGE.
MS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether police protection should be granted to the petitioner from threats posed by multiple respondents.
Narayanan
Superintendent of Police Alappay
Parameswaran P.G.
Rajamma
Pradeep
Sivaprasad
K.M. Joseph
K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
