Disposed

Abdul Azees v. the Inspector of Police

Kerala HC14 Oct 2020WP(C)/20679/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions under Article 226 for police protection against threats by respondents arising from a private debt dispute involving property assignment. The Court, recording an undertaking from respondents not to take law into their own hands, directed the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional police to lodge a complaint for appropriate action.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to approach jurisdictional police to lodge a complaint for appropriate action if threats continue.

Abdul Azees Vs the Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.20679 OF 2020(H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

ABDUL AZEES, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.HASSAN, PIRAMBILLIKUDY HOUSE, CHELAKULAM KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, VENGOLA P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN-683556.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUNNATHUNADU, KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION, P.O.PATTIMATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683562.

¶11

2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683542.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM RURAL, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, POWER HOUSE JUNCTION, ALUVA-683101.

¶13

4 MOOSA, AGED 62 YEARS,

¶14

S/O.IBRAHIM, POOTHANANGATTU PUTHANPURA HOUSE, CHELAKULAM KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE,

¶15

P.O.VENGOLA, PIN-683556, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶16

5 RIYAS, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA, POOTHANANGATTU PUTHANPURA HOUSE, CHELAKULAM KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, P.O.VENGOLA, PIN-683556, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶17

6 UMMER, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.SULAIMAN, ELAVUMKUDY HOUSE,

¶18

WP(C).No.20679 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

MULLANKUNNU BAGHOM, NORTH EZHIPRAM KARA, VAZHAKULAM VILLAGE, P.O.PONJASSERY, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683547.

¶21

R4-6 BY ADV. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN R4-6 BY ADV. SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN R4-6 BY ADV. SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. R4-6 BY ADV. SRI.U.M.HASSAN R4-6 BY ADV. SMT.P.PARVATHY R4-6 BY ADV. SMT.SURYA P SHAJI R4-6 BY ADV. SMT.AATHIRA SUNNY R4-6 BY ADV. SHRI.MANAS P HAMEED

¶22

SRI K.P. HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No.20679 OF 2020

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions to the respondents 1 to 3 to provide protection to his life and property from the threats posed by the party respondents.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner that he borrowed some amount from the 4th respondent for clearing the agricultural loan that was due to him to the District Co-operative Bank. The petitioner contends that the 4th respondent paid him a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in two instalments but towards security, he is alleged to have insisted upon the petitioner to assign his property by way of security. Left with no alternative, the petitioner is stated to have executed an agreement for sale by which the petitioner agreed to assign his property for a consideration of Rs.25 lakhs and received certain amounts. However, the petitioner was not able to clear the bank arrears and consequently the parties entered into Exhibit P3 agreement by which the petitioner agreed to return the amount received by him on or before the month of March 2020. Due to financial problems that plagued the petitioner, he was not able to clear the dues. He contends that the 5th respondent is the son of the 4th respondent and the rest are his men. They have started to threaten the petitioner with

¶29

WP(C).No.20679 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

physical harm if he does not repay the amount which the petitioner had agreed to repay in terms of Exhibit P3 agreement. He states that on 27.9.2020, the petitioner was intercepted by the party respondents and he was given an ultimatum. He approached the 3rd respondent and submitted a representation seeking his intervention. He states that no action was taken and hence this petition.

¶32

Sri.V.K.Rafeek, the learned counsel has entered appearance for respondent Nos.4 to 6. He contends that a sum of Rs.23 lakhs was received by the petitioner agreeing to assign his property and he failed to comply with his part of the agreement. Later, at the instance of mediators and well-wishers Exhibit P3 agreement was entered into by which the petitioner had agreed to return the amounts before the end of March. The said promise was also breached. The learned counsel submitted that none of the party respondents have any intention to take law into their own hands or to cause any harm to the petitioner.

¶33

The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that

¶34

the petitioner, as well as the 4th respondent, were summoned to the police station and their statements were recorded. It is submitted that if the petitioner has any further grievance of threat or harassment, he can very well approach the police and if the same is found genuine appropriate action shall be taken.

¶35

WP(C).No.20679 OF 2020

¶36

¶37

I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶38

As is evident from the facts disclosed, some amounts are due from the petitioner to the 4th respondent. The respondents 4 to 6 have undertaken before this Court that they have no intention to take law into their own hands. The said submission is recorded. If the petitioner has any further grievance, he may approach the jurisdictional police officer and lodge a complaint and if the complaint is found genuine, appropriate action shall be taken.

¶39

This petition is disposed of.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

sru

¶44

WP(C).No.20679 OF 2020

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 29.9.2020. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE FOR THE BUILDING NO.843/A IN WARD NO.6 OF KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 29.9.2020.

¶49

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PETITIONER AND 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 4.11.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION DATED 29.9.2020. EXHIBIT P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 29.9.2020.

¶50

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

¶51

/TRUE COPY/

¶52

P.A. TO JUDGE

Abdul Azees v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Azees v. the Inspector of Police

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

Adhikarath Kunheedhu Vs the District Collector

Ajmal @ Ajmal Ummar Vs the Secretary, the Central Board of Secondary Education

T.B.Kabeer Vs the Regional Transport Authority

K.Eshaque, Vs the District Collector

Sumesh Vs the Superintendent of Polce

Mohammed Yousaf T. Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority