Disposed

George Paul, v. the Commissioner of Police

Kerala HC2 Aug 2019WP(C)/8619/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking police protection against the petitioner's son involving a civil dispute over a settlement deed. Court directed police to intervene only upon cognizable offences and dismissed the plea for round-the-clock protection.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to interfere only if a cognizable offence is committed; writ petition disposed without order as to costs.

George Paul, Vs the Commissioner of Police — 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

FRIDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1941 WP(C).No.8619 of 2019

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

GEORGE PAUL, AGED 79 YEARS S/O. KAKKANATTU PAUL, RESIDING AT PEECHATTU HOUSE, NELLIMATTOM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 693.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SRI.T.S.SARATH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 031.

¶12

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OONNUKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 693.

¶13

3 PAUL GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE PAUL, RESIDING AT PEECHATTU HOUSE, NELLIMATTOM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 693.

¶14

BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE SR.GP SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.8619 of 2019

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

¶20

The petitioner is the father of the 3^rd

¶21

respondent, who claims police protection against the alleged threat to life and limb occasioned at the instance of the 3^rd respondent. We see from the records that there are disputes pending between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner has also filed an application before the Maintenance Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, under the Maintenance and Welfare to Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 for

¶22

the purpose of setting aside a settlement deed, earlier executed in favour of the 3^rd respondent. The proceedings ended in the setting aside of the deed, which order was set aside by Ext.P7 judgment of this Court. A remand was ordered and a fresh consideration was directed after looking into the contentions of the 3^rd respondent also. According to the learned Counsel for the 3^rd respondent, the remand has now prompted the petitioner to file the

¶23

WP(C).No.8619 of 2019

¶24

¶25

present writ petition for police protection.

¶26

2. We look at the statement filed by the Police, which indicates that at every instance when a complaint was raised by the petitioner, the Police had rushed to the spot, registered an FIR and conducted investigation. Charge has also been laid in two crimes. The 3^rd respondent had contended that the charge laid against the 3^rd respondent is false, especially since the 3^rd respondent has an alibi as to his presence in another spot at the time when the incident was alleged. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the alibi, if at all acceptable, is only with respect to the second complaint.

¶27

3. In any event, we are not going into such controversy, especially since the guilt or otherwise of the 3^rd respondent has to be decided in the trial. We only notice that the Police has submitted that

¶28

there is no necessity for round the clock protection. It is also submitted that there is no

¶29

WP(C).No.8619 of 2019

¶30

¶31

law and order situation existing and there are only civil disputes pending between the parties. The 3^rd respondent also undertakes that he would not carry out any illegal activity as against his parents or his sisters.

¶32

4. In such circumstances, we record the undertaking of the 3^rd respondent and direct the Police to interfere only if a cognizable offence is committed or apprehended. We make it clear that the Police shall not interfere in the civil dispute, unless so directed by a Civil Court or aurthority. The writ petition is disposed of. There is no order

¶33

as to costs.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

V.G. ARUN, JUDGE.

sp/02/08/19

//True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

WP(C).No.8619 of 2019

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27-12-2016. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30-12-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶46

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.48/2017 DATED 13-01-2017.

¶47

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.651/2017 DATED 06-07-2017.

¶48

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL DATED 30-05-2017.

¶49

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C) NO. 21271/2017 DATED 16-11-2018.

¶50

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.157/2019 DATED 13-03-2019. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15-03-2019.

¶51

EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.03.2019. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25.03.2019 ISSUED FROM THE OONNUKAL POLICE STATION.

¶52

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO.3982/2013 CONTAINING THE SIGNATURE OF THE PETITIONER.

George Paul, v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Paul, v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Ranjith Krishnan Vs the District Police Chief

Sebastian Dominic, Vs the Executive Committee of Kerala Agricultural University

Saraswathy Amma, Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Tinu Thomas, Vs Devassy Thomas

Jayarani Silks Vs Circle Inspector of Police