Dismissed

K.Devan v. the District Superintendent of Police, Palakkad

Kerala HC3 Apr 2013WP(C)/7994/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking police protection after heated exchanges between husband-wife sellers and buyers over a disputed property sale. Acknowledging threats but dismissing the writ, the court directed police to intervene if genuine threats are later reported, preserving civil remedies.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; deposit of issue on police protection conditioned on future genuine complaints.

K.Devan Vs the District Superintendent of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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. 7994 of 2013 (Y)

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. K.DEVAN, S/O.RAMAN, KALATHUKUNDIL HOUSE, P O VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SURABHI, W/O.DEVAN, KALATHUKUNDIL HOUSE, P O VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶13

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPPALAM-679 101.

¶14

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPPALAM-679 101.

¶15

4. K VIJAYA, D/O.RAMATHARAKAN, KALARITHODIYIL HOUSE, P O THOTTAKKARA-679 102, OTTAPPALAM TALUK.

¶16

5. MANIKANADAN, S/O.RAMANKUTTY, VADAKKETHIL PUTHANVEEDU, MEETNA, PALAPPURAM P O, OTTAPALAM TALUK-679 103

¶17

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

¶18

R1 TO R3 & R6 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH

¶19

R4 & R5 BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU,SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶20

SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN

¶21

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

¶22

Kss

¶23

WP(C).No. 7994 of 2013 (Y)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶26

EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE DTD 12/4/2012 BETWEEN PETITINERS AND 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD 6/11/2012 FILED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD 11/3/2013 PRESENTED BY IST PETITIONER BEFORE IST RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P4:-TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DTD 12/3/2013 FOR SENDING EXT P3 COMPLAINT TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P5:-TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DTD 12/3/2013 FOR SENDING EXT P3 COMPLAINT TO 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

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

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C) No.7994 of 2013 ----------------------------------------Dated, this the 3^rd day of April, 2013

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

K.M.Joseph, J.

¶41

Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following

¶42

relief:

¶43

“issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents 1 to 3 to afford effective and meaningful police protection to the life of petitioners and their family from respondents 4, 5 and their men.”

¶44

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

¶45

Petitioners are husband and wife. They entered into an agreement for sale of their house and compound at Vaniyamkulam with the 4^th respondent. The 5^th respondent is the person who brokered the deal. The agreement was dated 12.4.2012. The period for execution of the sale deed was seven months from the date of agreement. The consideration fixed under the agreement was Rs.66 lakhs. The 4^th respondent, the purchaser, paid an advance of Rs.40 lakhs to the petitioners. The property

¶46

W.P.(C) No.7994 of 2013 2

¶47

sought to be sold had Court attachments and other encumbrances on the date of agreement. The terms of the agreement stipulated that the petitioners shall liquidate all the existing liabilities before receiving balance consideration and execution of sale deed. But, all such plans floundered as more Court cases and liabilities came to the fore subsequent to the agreement. This changed the tide and it had become not possible for the petitioners to tie over the crisis before the time fixed in the agreement was to end. In view of the changed circumstances, on mutual understanding the time for performance of the contract was extended upto 9.5.2013. The extended time also is nearing completion. The petitioners were not able to lift the attachments over the property and settle the other liabilities. The liabilities run to several lakhs of rupees and subsequent to the agreement one finance company alone had filed a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for an inflated claim of forty five lakhs rupees. The crisis is so deep that petitioners are not in a position to find an immediate solution. The petitioners informed the true state of affairs to the 4^th and 5^th respondents expressing their inability to perform the contract and offered to return the advance amount in installments. The 4^th and 5^th respondents are stubborn that they should obtain the sale deed executed. The 4^th and 5^th respondents and 4^th respondent's son who is said to be abroad are threatening the petitioners with dire consequences if not the sale deed is executed. The 4^th and 5^th respondents come to the petitioners'

¶48

W.P.(C) No.7994 of 2013 3

¶49

home along with them men and attempted to unleash violence. They repeatedly telephoned the petitioners and hurl serious threats to the petitioners' life. They threaten to do away with the petitioners and their family if the sale deed is not executed immediately. The 4^th and 5^th respondents are rich and powerful. They are capable to go to any extent. The petitioners and their family live under the shade of fear and terror. In fact, the agreement clothes the 4^th respondent with effective rights to approach a Court of law seeking specific performance. Even otherwise, the agreement for sale is a binding bargain. But, the 4^th respondent is seen bent upon pursuing a path forbidden by law, taking law into her own arms. Even at odd hours of night petitioners receive threatening phone calls. The petitioners have approached the police seeking protection to their life. Police is indifferent. They advised the petitioners to arrange private security. Police is inactive and any police action is kept at bay due to influence exerted by the 4^th respondent. The 4^th and 5^th respondents have no right to cause threat to the life of the petitioners. Petitioners' life is in imminent danger. Even if the petitioners committed breach, the remedy of the 4^th respondent is to sue for damages. The inaction of the police violates the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition.

¶50

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the party respondents. Learned counsel for the party

¶51

W.P.(C) No.7994 of 2013

¶52

¶53

respondents would submit that the party respondents have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioners and the children of the petitioners. We record the said submission and dispose of the writ petition. We make it clear that, this judgment will not stand in the way of the remedies open to the party respondents. The competent forum before which the matter comes in a lis between the parties is free to decide the matter untrammelled by anything contained in this judgment. We make it clear that, in case the petitioners approach the third respondent and complains of any threat to their life as against respondents 4 and 5, the third respondent will look into the complaint and if the threat is found to be genuine, he will afford protection to the life of the petitioners as against respondents 4 and 5 as and when required.

¶54

(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE.

¶55

( K.RAMAKRISHNAN) JUDGE.

¶56

K.Devan v. the District Superintendent of Police, Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Devan v. the District Superintendent of Police, Palakkad

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

C.a.Salomy Vs State of Kerala

Narayanan Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.v.Raju Vs State of Kerala