Dismissed

Muhammed Jinoz v. District Police Chief

Kerala HC13 Nov 2020WP(C)/15904/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition seeking police protection against illegal threats. The Court held that while the SHO has a duty to maintain law and order, the petition was disposed of by directing the SHO to ensure local order without expressing views on pending criminal complaints.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd respondent Station House Officer directed to take necessary steps to ensure law and order is maintained in the locality.

Muhammed Jinoz Vs District Police Chief — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

W.P.(C) No.15904 OF 2020(K)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

MUHAMMED JINOZ, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. NISSAR KUNJU, VELOOR HOUSE, THAMARAKULAM, MAVELIKKARA.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001

¶11

2 DEPUTY SUPERINTEND OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KAYAMKULAM-690 502

¶12

3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NOORNADU POLICE STATION, NOORNADU-690 504

¶13

4 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PANDALAM-689 501

¶14

5 REKHA BINU, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. BINU, RENJI BHAVANAM, (PUTHUPARAMBIL),PERINGALA P.O., MULAKKUZHA, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA-683 565

¶15

R1-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.DILEEP R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL R5 BY ADV. SRI.MANU SRINATH R5 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN G. GEORGE

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI P.P. THAJUDHEEN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C) No.15904 OF 2020(K)

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 4 to grant adequate Police protection to his life from the illegal threats from the side of 5^th respondent and her men. In the writ petition various allegations are raised against the 5^th respondent. Alleging certain acts on the part of the 5th respondent, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 complaint before the Director General of Police, with copy to respondents 1, 3 and 4.

¶23

On 06.08.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 4. Notice by speed post was ordered to 5^th respondent. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader, the 4^th respondent was directed to ensure that the law and order is maintained.

¶24

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5^th respondent raising serious allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit.

¶25

A statement has been filed on behalf of the 3^rd respondent pointing out that the petitioner is an accused in several

¶26

W.P.(C) No.15904 OF 2020(K)

¶27

¶28

cases, the details of which are furnished in paragraph 5 of that statement.

¶29

On 21.08.2020, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court has made it clear that the interim order already passed will not stand in the way of the Police conducting investigation in any crime involving the petitioner and the Police is free to take follow up procedure, in accordance with law.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent.

¶31

The Kerala Police Act, 2011 is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the establishment, regulation, powers and duties of the Police Force in the State of Kerala and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Chapter II of the Act deals with duties and functions of Police. Section 3 of the Act deals with general duties of Police. As per Section 3, the Police, as a service functioning category among the people as part of the administrative system shall, subject to the Constitution of India and the laws enacted thereunder, strive in accordance with the law, to ensure that all persons enjoy the freedoms and rights available under the law by ensuring peace and order, integrity of the nation,

¶32

W.P.(C) No.15904 OF 2020(K)

¶33

¶34

security of the State and protection of human rights. Section 4 of the Act deals with functions of Police. As per Section 4, the Police Officers shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, perform the functions enumerated in clauses (a) to (s) of Section 4. As per clause (a), the Police Officers shall enforce the law impartially; and as per clause (b), the Police Officers shall protect the life, liberty, property, human rights and dignity of all persons in accordance with the law.

¶35

Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police thus;

¶36

"In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, well-trained and well-disciplined force or police whom it can trust, and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice. The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants."

¶37

9 . In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary

¶38

[(2014) 2 SCC 532] the Apex Court held that, one of the responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the important

¶39

W.P.(C) No.15904 OF 2020(K)

¶40

¶41

duties the police has to perform. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the offender to the book. The Apex Court reiterated the said principle in Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470] .

¶42

From the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that there are serious disputes between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent. The petitioner is an accused in several crimes, some of which are based on the complaints made by the 5^th respondent. Since some of those crimes are pending investigation, this Court deem it appropriate not to express anything touching the merits of those complaints.

¶43

In view of the statutory provisions and the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer is duty bound to ensure that law and order is maintained within his jurisdiction.

¶44

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 3^rd respondent to take necessary steps to ensure that the law and order in the locality is maintained. In case of any threat to the law and order, at the instance of the 5^th respondent or anyone under her, it would be open to the petitioner to bring it to the notice

¶45

W.P.(C) No.15904 OF 2020(K)

¶46

¶47

of the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer, in which event, the 3^rd respondent shall take necessary steps to ensure maintenance of law and order in the locality.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

ANIL K. NARENDRAN

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

MIN

¶52

W.P.(C) No.15904 OF 2020(K)

¶53

¶54