The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of a quashing order. The respondents contended they acted under a valid arrest warrant. The court found no prima facie case for contempt as they acted in pursuance of a court warrant.
Petition closed; no proceedings initiated against respondents.
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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/17TH KARTHIKA, 1938
Con.Case(C).No. 1721 of 2016 (S) IN Crl.MC.2936/2013
AGAINST Crl.MC 2936/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 17-07-2013 PETITIONER:
PAVANAN
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN UNNITHAN, PATHALILL HOUSE, KALEECKAL KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH
RESPONDENTS:
1. HARI SHANKAR.I.P.S. (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 645.
2. PUSHPA KUMAR
(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), PRINCIPAL SB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION & PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 645.
3. HARIDAS (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), CIVIL POLICE OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION & PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 645.
Con.Case(C).No. 1721 of 2016
4. HAREESH (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), CIVIL POLICE OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION & PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 645.
5. SURESH (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), CIVIL POLICE OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION & PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 645.
R1-R4 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.AMJAD ALI
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.
Contempt Case (Civil) No.1721 of 2016
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2016
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~
Cont.Case(Civil) No.1721/2016 -2-
also produced. The learned Public Prosecutor also refers to Annexure-R2(c), which is the e-mail communication issued by the petitioner to the office of the Chief Minister to contend that the allegations in the Contempt petition are not entirely correct.
This petition is closed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V.
JUDGE
Ps/9/11/16
Cont.Case(Civil) No.1721/2016 -3-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the police officers are liable to be proceeded against for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for executing an arrest warrant.
Whether the petitioner's claim of wilful disobedience of the quashing order stands proved.
Whether the respondents acted in accordance with a warrant issued by a competent court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PAVANAN
HARI SHANKAR
PUSHPA KUMAR
HARIDAS
HAREESH
SURESH
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
