Disposed

Suseela.a v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC17 Mar 2015WP(C)/8277/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that no direction for police protection was required as the financier respondent undertook not to commit criminal activity during money transaction disputes, though police must inquire if an offence is actually committed.

What did the court decide?

No direction for police protection granted; Court observed that police shall enquire into the matter on complaint if an offence is committed or attempted.

Suseela.a Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Kerala HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/26TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶7

WP(C).No. 8277 of 2015 (H)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

SUSEELA.A, KADUVAMTHURUTHIL, MANGARAM, KONNI.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR

¶11

SRI.A.K.RAJESH SRI.VENKATESH GOPI SMT.T.RESHMA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 691.

¶14

2. ROSAMMA PHILIPOSE, PLAVUNILAKUNNATHU HOUSE, VARIYAPURAM, ELLANTHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 643.

¶15

R1 BY SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, STATE ATTORNEY

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

mbr/

¶18

WP(C).No. 8277 of 2015 (H)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26. 2015 & ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

**ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.8277 of 2015

¶27

Dated this the 17^th day of March 2015

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Shaffique, J

¶30

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection inter alia contending that the 2^nd respondent, a financier has come to her residence where she is running Ladies Hostel demanding huge amounts. Petitioner is also threatened with loss of life. Though a complaint was given to the police, no action was taken in the matter and hence the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶31

The learned State Attorney, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner owes large amounts to various persons and several cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pending against her. It is is submitted that on receipt of the complaint, the parties were summoned and it was found that there is money transaction

¶32

W.P.C.No.8277/2015

¶33

¶34

between the petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent. However, the 2^nd respondent has undertaken that no criminal activity shall be committed in the matter relating to money transaction.

¶35

Having regard to the aforesaid submission, we do not think that any direction is required to be passed in this writ petition. However, we observe that if any offence is committed or there is attempt to commit offence, on the complaint of the petitioner, police shall enquire into the matter and do the needful, in accordance with law.

¶36

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶37

(sd/-) (ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

jsr

W.P.C.No.8277/2015 3

W.P.C.No.8277/2015 4

W.P.C.No.8277/2015 5

Suseela.a v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suseela.a v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Komalam Vs the Devaswom Commissioner

Anasiya Ashraf Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Punnoose v K Vs Vakathanam Grama Panchayath

N.C.Vijayan Vs K.J.Francis

Kentayis v.Benny Vs the Mahatma Gandhi University

Dr.K.G. Babu Sudheendranath Vs State of Kerala