Petitioners accused of emigration fraud sought police protection from respondents claiming they trespassed. The court dismissed the petition as the allegations were unsubstantiated and police action against respondents for recovery was appropriate.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1941
WP(C).No.15678 of 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 SAVITHA MANOJ,
AGED 33 YEARS
W/O. MANOJ, THANIYATH HOUSE, THURUTHIPPURAM P.O, PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE
2 MANOJ,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. GEORGE, THANIYATH HOUSE, THURUTHIPPURAM P.O, PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHENVELIKKARA POLICE STATION-683 511
WP(C).No.15678 of 2019 2
BY ADV. SRI.DEEPAK MOHAN SR.GP.SRI.P.P.THAJUDHEEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.15678 of 2019 3
JUDGMENT
Arun, J
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in
Crime No.255 of 2019 of the Puthenvelikara Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 read with 34 of IPC, Sections 10 & 16 read with 24 (1)(b) of the Emigration Act and Rule 25 read with 24 (f) of the Emigration Rules. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had, without any license under the Emigration Act and Rules, obtained money from various persons, including the party respondents, by promising to secure visa for those persons and to take them to Italy and Portugal and instead took those persons to Armenia.
WP(C).No.15678 of 2019 4
was transferred to Benny, contrary to his assurance, Benny failed to obtain visas and the petitioners are innocent of the allegations. The petitioners alleged that the party respondents, in their bid to recover the amounts paid by them, trespassed into the residence of the petitioners and tried to attack them. Hence, the petitioners seek police intervention, to avert such incidents in future.
WP(C).No.15678 of 2019 5
urged on behalf of the party respondents. Even though the petitioners allege that they were cheated by Benny, that person is not arrayed as a respondent in this Writ Petition. Other than unsubstantiated allegations, there is nothing to show that the party respondents had indulged in any criminal activity. If any cognizable offence is committed by the party respondents, in their attempt to recover the money paid to the petitioners, it is for the police to take appropriate action. We are of the opinion that the police cannot be directed to afford protection to the petitioners based on the unsubstantiated allegations in the Writ Petition and also considering the conduct of the petitioners. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
cms
WP(C).No.15678 of 2019 6
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE PARTICULARS OF GLOBAL CONNECT.
EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 21.2.2019. EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 14.3.2019. EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER DT. 22.5.19 IN CRIME NO. 255/19 OF PUTHENVELIKKARA POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R7(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PUTHENVELIKKARA POLICE STATION.
cms /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the police could be directed to afford protection to petitioners based on unsubstantiated allegations against respondents.
Whether the High Court can interfere with police action to protect petitioners without substantial evidence of criminal activity by respondents.
SAVITHA MANOJ AND MANOJ
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND OTHER OFFICERS
BIJU VARGHESE AND OTHERS
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
V.G.ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
