Dismissed

A.Raghavan Nambiar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Aug 2019WP(C)/461/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner sought police protection due to enmity and alleged threats from neighbors. The court declined the prayer, finding no basis for round-the-clock protection given police findings of false complaints.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for direction to police to provide round-the-clock protection to the petitioner and his family was declined.

A.Raghavan Nambiar Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶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 V.G.ARUN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.461 OF 2019(G)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

A.RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR AGED 69 YEARS RTD AEO, S/O. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SOWPARNIKA, AARATTUTHARA P.O., MANATHANVADI, WYNAD DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.RAJEEV

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶13

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANATHAVADI POLICE STATION, WYNAD DISTRICT 670 645

¶14

3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, WYNAD DISTRICT 670 645

¶15

4 VINOD KUMAR. M.A, S/O. LATE ANTONY, MUZHVANCHERY HOUSE, AARATTUTHARA P.O.,

¶16

MANATHANVADI, WYNAD DISTRICT, 670645

¶17

5 SHIBITTA VINOD, W/O. VINOD KUMAR, MUZHVANCHERY HOUSE, AARATTUTHARA P.O., MANATHANVADI, WYNAD DISTRICT 670 645

¶18

6 LEELAMMA ANTONY, W/O. LATE ANTONY,

¶19

WP(C).No.461 OF 2019(G) 2

¶20

MUZHVANCHERY HOUSE, AARATTUTHARA P.O., MANATHANVADI,

¶21

WYNAD DISTRICT 670 645

¶22

BY ADVS.

¶23

ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION

¶24

SR.GP SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0108-2019, THE COURT ON 07-08-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

WP(C).No.461 OF 2019(G) 3

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Arun, J

¶29

The petitioners and respondents 4 to 6 are neighbours and are at loggerheads. The 5^th respondent is the wife of the 4th respondent and the 6^th respondent, his mother. The enimity between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent escalated to such an extent that it led to assault and affray, resulting in crimes being registered at the Mananthavady Police Station against both. The petitioner had caused an investigation to be conducted by the police on the basis of his allegation that the death of the 4^th respondent's father was under suspicious circumstances. The petitioner apprehends danger to the life and limb of the petitioner as well as his family members at the hands of the 4^th respondent.

¶30

Respondents 4 to 6 have not entered appearance, in spite of service of notice. A statement has been filed on behalf of the Station House Officer, Mananthavady, wherein it is been stated that in the

¶31

WP(C).No.461 OF 2019(G) 4

¶32

year 2015 two crimes were registered against the 4^th respondent on the complaint of the petitioner. Again in the year 2016 three crimes were registered, two against the 4^th respondent and one against the petitioner. Of the five cases, one case each against the 4^th respondent and the petitioner were found to be false on investigation. It is also stated that on the basis of the petitioners complaint, expressing doubt regarding the death of the 4^th respondent's father, a detailed enquiry was conducted and the cause of death was confirmed to be cardiac arrest. It is stated that most of the complaints submitted by the petitioner were found to be false on investigation. The Station House Officer reports that at present there is no requirement for round-the-clock police protection.

¶33

From the pleadings in the Writ Petition and the statement of the Station House Officer it is evident that there are bickerings between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent. It is also evident that timely action was taken by the police, whenever such incidents were reported. As such, there is no requirement for directing

¶34

WP(C).No.461 OF 2019(G) 5

¶35

the police to provide protection to the petitioner and his

¶36

family, based on past incidents. If at all any attempt to commit cognizable offence is made by the 4^th respondent, it is for the petitioner to alert the police, in which event the police, after enquiring into the genuineness of the allegations, will take appropriate preventive action.

¶37

The prayer for police protection is hence declined and the Writ Petition disposed of with the above observation.

¶38

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶39

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

¶40

cms

¶41

WP(C).No.461 OF 2019(G) 6

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE A NEWS PAPER REPORT DATED 3.3.2015 IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED TO 3RD RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE REGISTRATION OF CRIME CASES AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ABOUT THE REFER REPORT OF CRIME NO. 82/16
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 37/2015 U/S 427 IPC AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 70/16 U/S 294 (B), 506 (II) IPC BEFORE JFMC II MANANTHAVADY AS 4TH RESPONDENT AS SOLE ACCUSED BASED ON A COMPLAINT BY THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 172/2015 REGISTERED U/S 427 IPC WITH RESPECT TO DAMAGING THE CAR PARKED IN THE COURTYARD OF THE HOUSE OF PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF FIR IN 69/16 U/S 341, 324, 506 IPC OF MANTHAVADY POLICE STATION ON 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 859/16
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.12.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 EXT P11	TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF EXT. P9 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF

¶45

WP(C).No.461 OF 2019(G) 7

¶46

ASST.ENGINEER, MANANTHAVADY

¶47

EXT P12 COPY OF PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF SUB COLLECTOR, MANANTHAVADY DTD 30.1.2015 EXT P13 COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER DTD 18.1.2019 BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY. RESPONDENTS EXTS NIL

¶48

cms /True copy/ P.S.to Judge

A.Raghavan Nambiar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Raghavan Nambiar v. State of Kerala

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

Suresh Babu K, Vs State Police Chief

Ninan Lukose, Vs the Director General of Police

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs the State Police Chief

G.Ponnappan, Vs the State of Kerala

Ammini Vs the District Superintendent of Police

Riyas Khan Vs State of Kerala