Dismissed

Vijayakumar v. the State Police Chief

Kerala HC19 Mar 2018WP(C)/3839/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the non-grant of police protection, alleging threats from respondents 4-9. The Court found no reasonable cause for protection, rejected the plea that criminal antecedents deprived the petitioner of safety rights, and directed police to enquire if threats materialized.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of. No costs. Police directed to enquire into any genuine complaint of threat.

Vijayakumar Vs the State Police Chief — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶6

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶7

WP(C).No. 3839 of 2018

¶8

PETITIONER(S)

¶9

VIJAYAKUMAR S/O CHANDRASENAN, AGED 51 YEARS, ANJU BHAVAN, CHENGOTTUKONAM, THUNDATH PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN.695001.

¶13

2. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695001.

¶14

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHANCODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695584.

¶15

4. G. PRAKASH, S/O GOPALAN, G BHAVAN, CHEMPAZHANTHI PO, CHENGOTTUKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-695 587.

¶16

5. VINOD

¶17

'VISMAYA', CHEMPAZHANTHI PO, CHENGOTTUKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695587.

¶18

6. G. SANTHOSH S/O GOPALAN, 'NANDANAM, CHEMPAZHANTHI PO, CHENGOTTUKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695587.

¶19

7. KUTTAN@PRASANTH KUNNUVILA VEEDU, NEAR S.N. PUBLIC SCHOOL, CHENGOTTUKONAM, THUNDATHIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695011.

¶20

WPC 3839/18

¶21

8. PRAVEEN, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, NEAR S.N PUBLIC SCHOOL, CHENGOTTUKONAM, THUNDATHIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695011.

¶22

9. DEEPU, S/O YASODA, CHERUMALAKUNNIL, PITHRAVATTOM, KATTAYIKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695584.

¶23

R1-R3 BY ADV. SURESH BABU THOMAS, ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶24

R4 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM BY ADV. SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW BY ADV. SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

WP(C).No. 3839 of 2018 (D)

¶27

¶28

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶29

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.462/2017 OF THE KAZHAKKOOTAM POLICE STATION, DATED 20.3.2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 DATED 28.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P2 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P2 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
//TRUE COPY//

¶30

PS TO JUDGE.

¶31

jg-24/3

¶32

K.VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ.

¶33

WP(C) No.3839 of 2018

¶34

------------------------------------------Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2018

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Vinod Chandran, J.

¶37

The petitioner is concerned with his life and contends that respondents 4 to 9 of which the fourth respondent is a Civil Police Officer, have been threatening his life. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 9 has filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is pointed out that the petitioner had been continuously involving in criminal activities and due to political clout, no case was registered against him. After the change of Government a number of cases have been registered against him, is the specific contention taken.

¶38

The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is involved in many crimes and also included in the rowdy list, and then the petitioner approached this Court claiming threat to his life and thereby seeking police protection. It is also submitted that if protection is granted to the petitioner, it would cause unnecessary

¶39

WPC3839/18

¶40

-2-

¶41

difficulty to the investigation of the crimes registered against him.

¶42

We do not think that there is any reasonable cause shown for police protection by the petitioner. However, the mere fact that he is involved in criminal cases, cannot lead to any threat against his life. If any complaint is received as to the threat to his life, the Police shall enquire into the matter and endeavor to avert the same.

¶43

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶44

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶45

Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶46

Vijayakumar v. the State Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumar v. the State Police Chief

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

Kondody Hotels & Resorts India Private Limited Vs Peermade Hotels & Resorts Employees Union (Citu)

Velu Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Tanur

K.S.E.B. Vs K.S.Abdulsathar Haji

Veiloor Muslim Puthen Palli Jama Ath Vs the Director General of Police

Rajendran Vs the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Sowparnika Projects and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Works Contract)