Dismissed

Jithin Shankar K. v. the District Police Chief, Kozhikode

Kerala HC11 Sept 2020WP(C)/14732/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the police to provide protection against alleged threats by respondents 3 and 4, claiming they took his property and money. The respondents contested, alleging the petitioner borrowed money from others. The Court found allegations unsubstantiated, noted respondents appeared with no threat, and disposed of the petit

What did the court decide?

Writ in nature of mandamus commanding the police to provide protection to the petitioner was not granted.

Jithin Shankar K. Vs the District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 20TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.14732 OF 2020(N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JITHIN SHANKAR K., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O SANKARANARAYANAN.V.K, KEERTHIMUDRA HOUSE,PALAZHY, VADAKKECHAL ROAD, PO.GURUVAYOORAPPAN COLLEGE, KOZHIKKODE-14.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673004.

¶11

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANTHEERANKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKKODE,PIN-673019.

¶12

3 BAJITH.P.V, S/O BABU,P.V.B.HOUSE,KATTUKULANGARA, P.O.NELLIKKODE,CALICUT, PIN-673016.

¶13

4 BABIJITH.P.V, S/O BABU,P.V.B.HOUSE,KATTUKULANGARA, P.O.NELLIKKODE,CALICUT,PIN-673016.

¶14

R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN SHRI.COLIN ALEX

¶15

R1 & R2 SRI BIMAL K NATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.14732 OF 2020(N)

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The above-captioned Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶21

issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the second respondent to provide adequate protection to the life of the petitioner and his family from respondents three and four and their men.

¶22

The petitioner contends that the respondents 3 and 4 are his childhood friends and they used to manage his finances while he was working overseas. The 3rd respondent used to work as his driver. As demanded by the respondents 3 and 4, large sums of money was allegedly advanced by the petitioner. He also contends that as requested by the respondents 3 and 4, title deeds of his property and that of his near relatives were handed over for raising money for their needs. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, the business run by the petitioner nosedived and he suffered huge losses. The petitioner demanded the respondents 3 and 4 to return the amount borrowed from him. They gave some lame excuses and offered to arrange loans from private financiers. Believing their words, the petitioner is alleged to have handed over documents in respect of his own properties and that of his aunt. He is also alleged to have handed over several cheques for that purpose. The respondents

¶23

WP(C).No.14732 OF 2020(N)

¶24

¶25

did not arrange the money as assured and the documents were also not returned. The petitioner contends that the automobiles owned by the petitioner and his father were taken away by the respondents 3 and 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents 3 and 4 had pledged his vehicles to strangers and they are harassing him for money. He contends that he lodged Exhibit P1 and P2 complaints before the respondents 1 and 2, but no action was taken. It is in the aforesaid scenario that the petitioner has rushed to this Court seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to provide police protection to him and his family members.

¶26

Sri Bimal. K. Nath, the learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the petitioner had borrowed money from numerous persons and the same was not repaid. Several complaints were received by the police and for conducting a preliminary inquiry and to sort out the issue, notice, as contemplated under the law, was issued to the petitioner. It is at that juncture that this Writ petition was filed suppressing the actual facts.

¶27

Sri.T.K.Vipindas, the learned counsel has entered appearance for respondents 3 and 4. The learned counsel submitted that the respondents 3 and 4 are law-abiding citizens and they have no intention to threaten or obstruct the petitioner or cause him any harm. The said submission is recorded. It is submitted that it was the petitioner who had borrowed money from all and sundry and now the blame is placed on the respondents 3 and 4. He would further contend that based on the request of the petitioner, the respondents 3

¶28

WP(C).No.14732 OF 2020(N)

¶29

¶30

and 4 have handed over valuable property for raising amounts and the same has not been returned.

¶31

I have considered the submissions advanced. Prima facie, it appears from the submissions that the contentions now raised by the petitioner alleging malfeasance and misfeasance against the respondents 3 and 4 are unsubstantiated. Now that the respondents 3 and 4 have come on record and have contended that they have no intention to threaten or harass the petitioner nothing further subsists in this petition. If the petitioner has any bona fide grievance and if the respondents 1 and 2 refuse to register his complaint, he can very well approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek his remedies. I do not think that this Court will be justified in granting an order of police protection to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances.

¶32

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶33

SD/-

¶34

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

DSV/11.9.2020

¶37

WP(C).No.14732 OF 2020(N)

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 07.07.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶42

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 07.07.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶43

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

NIL

¶45

//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE

Jithin Shankar K. v. the District Police Chief, Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jithin Shankar K. v. the District Police Chief, Kozhikode

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

Queens Hotel Vs the Excise Commissioner

Queens Hotel Vs the Excise Commissioner

Radhakrishnan Vs the Commissioner of Police

U.K.Santhoshkumar Vs City Police Commissioner

Kalathingal Eshaque, Vs the District Collector

Indus Towers Limited, Vs the District Police Chief