Disposed

Shiju C.S, v. Assistant Commissioner of Police

Kerala HC14 Dec 2018WP(C)/40325/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner alleged coercion to sign an agreement as an accused person's surety in a police station. The court recorded the respondents' submission that no such agreement was executed, cleared the petitioner of liability, and directed police action.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is cleared of liability as the respondents deny the agreement. Police directed to take appropriate action.

Shiju C.S, Vs Assistant Commissioner of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | 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

FRIDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶7

WP(C).No. 40325 of 2018

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

SHIJU C.S, AGED 38 YEARS S/O C.K.SUDHAKARAN,CHELLISSERIL HOUSE,JAYANTHI ROAD,MARADU P.O.ERNAKULAM 682 304.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ERNAKULAM 682 016

¶13

2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM 682 018

¶14

3 SUB INBSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERANELLORE POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM 682 026.

¶15

4 SUNAYNA T JOSEPH, AGED 35 YEARS 209,1ST FLOOR,METRO PARADISE,CHERANELLORE,ERNAKULAM 682 026.

¶16

5 LALU M.P. ADVOCATE,DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM 682 016

¶17

WP(C)No.40325/2018

¶18

::2::

¶19

6 NISHIN GEORGE VIJAYABABU, NO 63/1813,ACHAN VEETIL ROAD,SRM ROAD,ERNAKULAM 682 017.

¶20

7 MIDHUM P ARAVIND, AGED 37 YEARS S/O LATE P.S.ARAVINDAKSHAN,SREE KRISHNA HOUSE,SABARMATHI ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O.COCHIN25.

¶21

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.ANI JOSEPH

¶22

OTHER PRESENT:

¶23

SRI P P THAJUDHEEN SR GP, SRI K A ANI JOSEPH, SMT R RANJINI

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.40325/2018

::3::

J U D G M E N T

Vinod Chandran, J

¶29

The petitioner is before this Court alleging that he stood bail for the 7^th respondent

¶30

who was arrested in a complaint made by the 4^th respondent. Later, the 7^th respondent and the petitioner were summoned to the police station where their advocates also were present and the petitioner was also asked to be present. The 4^th and 7^th respondent is said to have talked between themselves and agreed on a compensation amount. The allegation of the petitioner is that the 6^th respondent who was the lawyer of the 7^th respondent got drafted a handwritten agreement between respondents 7 and 4, the former agreeing to pay an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the latter. The specific grievance of the petitioner is that the

¶31

::4::

¶32

WP(C)No.40325/2018

¶33

petitioner who was present in the police station was threatened and coerced to sign the agreement as a surety.

¶34

2. Notice was issued to the respondents 4 to 7. The 4^th respondent is present in person. Respondents 5 and 6 appear through Counsel. The 7^th respondent does not appear, despite service which has been made on his mother- the adult member found in his house. The learned Senior Government Pleader also submits that the 7^th respondent is absconding.

¶35

3. The 4^th respondent who appears in person submits that there is no such agreement executed in the police station and that she is only interested in the law being put in motion to take action against the 7^th respondent. The 4^th respondent also submits that the police had not taken action at the first instance and she had been insisting for the registration of a crime against the 7^th respondent.

¶36

::5::

¶37

¶38

The 6^th respondent lawyer of the 7^th respondent supports the case of the petitioner. The 6^th respondent also submits that he was the person who got the agreement handwritten. However a copy of the same was not even given to him by the 4^th respondent. The Counsel for the 5^th respondent submits that he has merely extended legal aid to the 4^th respondent and was present in the police station and supports the 4^th respondent's case that there was no agreement executed.

¶39

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader

¶40

submits on instruction that the Control Room of the City received a distress call from the 4^th respondent, upon which both the jurisdictional police and the control room personnel reached her house where the 7^th respondent was found. The 7^th respondent was found to have been creating some disturbances in the 4^th respondent's house. He was taken to the police station. Subsequently the 4^th

¶41

¶42

::6::

¶43

respondent told the police that she has no complaint. Again there was a public nuisance caused by the 7^th respondent in the locality of the 4^th respondent's house when a crime was registered as Crime No.1352/2018 of Cheranalloor Police station. After that on 07.12.2018 the 4^th respondent again approached the Sub Inspector of Police, Cheranalloore Police Station making yet more serious allegations against the 7^th respondent. There was a crime registered and the 4^th respondent was also subjected to medical examination. The investigation in both crimes registered are going on and the 7^th respondent is absconding.

¶44

5. As far as the present writ petition is concerned the only grievance is that the petitioner was threatened to sign a document as a surety for payment of amounts to the 4^th respondent. Though there are rival versions as submitted by the parties, as of now, the alleged beneficiary of the

¶45

::7::

¶46

¶47

document, the 4^th respondent, and her lawyer, ie., the 5^th respondent categorically submits that there was no such agreement executed. We hence record

¶48

the said submission which would clear the petitioner of any such liability. The 4^th respondent also submits that as of now there is no earlier agreement where the petitioner has been made liable for any amounts to the 4^th respondent. We record the above submission and close the writ petition, directing the Police to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, in the crimes registered.

¶49

Writ petition would stand disposed of. No

¶50

order as to costs.

¶51

Sd/K. Vinod Chandran, Judge

¶52

Sd/Ashok Menon, Judge

¶53

jma

Shiju C.S, v. Assistant Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiju C.S, v. Assistant Commissioner of Police

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs Late Shri N.P. Abraham

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Cochin Vs Shri.v.M.Mathai,Palarivattom.

Prashanth Vs Shyni

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut Vs Shri.N.K.Ashraf

Poovar Boat Club Owners Association Vs the Director General of Police

Shareefa Vs the State of Kerala