Disposed

Ponnamma Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Nov 2020WP(C)/9725/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Article 226, the Kerala High Court awarded protection to a widow petitioner from threats by her hostile daughter and son-in-law. The court directed the SHO to monitor the petitioner's residence and ensure her safety, noting that a criminal case was already registered against the family members. The court reserved the question of residence rights for civil courts.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Station House Officer to maintain a close watch on the petitioner's place of abode to ensure no threat or harm is caused by the respondent daughter and son-in-law.

Ponnamma Jose Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

W.P.(C) No.9725 OF 2020(M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PONNAMMA JOSE, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. LATE JOSE, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, KOOTHRAPPALLY P.O. KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 540.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.

¶11

2 DY. S.P. CHANGANACHERRY, CHANGANACHERRY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 101.

¶12

3 S.H.O. KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 540.

¶13

4 ANEESH K KURIAKOSE, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. KURIAKOSE, PUTHOLIL PUTHAN VEETTIL HOUSE, KADAYANICKADU P.O. MANIMALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 541.

¶14

5 JIZA JOSE, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O. ANEESH, PUTHOLIL PUTHAN VEETTIL HOUSE, KADAYANICKADU P.O., MANIMALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 541.

¶15

R1-R3 SRI.P.P.THAJUDHEEN,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4&R5 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI R4&R5 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C) No.9725 OF 2020(M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to render necessary protection to her life and take appropriate action on the basis of Ext.P2 order dated 24.03.2020 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Changanassery in M.C.No.21 of 2020 and Ext.P5 compliant dated 02.05.2020 submitted before the 2^nd respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police, Changanassery. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is a widow, has made certain allegations against respondents 4 and 5, who are none other than her daughter and son-in-law.

¶21

On 08.05.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3. Notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 4 and 5. This Court passed an order directing the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer to ensure that no threat or harm is caused by respondents 4 and 5 to the life of the petitioner. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said order read thus;

¶22

W.P.(C) No.9725 OF 2020(M)

¶23

-3-

¶24

"3. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the complaint of the petitioner is being investigated and a crime has been registered as crime No.542/2020 of Karukachal Police Station against respondents 4 and 5. The learned Government Pleader also submits that according to the instructions given to her, respondent No.4 who is none other than the son-in-law of the petitioner is insisting that certain item of property must be conveyed to him and he is continuing to visit the house of the petitioner every now and then with this demand.

¶25

In such circumstances, I direct the third respondent, the Station House Officer of Karukachal Police Station to ensure that no threat or harm is caused by respondents 4 and 5 to the life of the petitioner."

¶26

The said interim order was followed by an order dated 24.08.2020, which reads thus;

¶27

"The dispute is in regard to a residential building belonging to the petitioner and the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent appears to have moved the Family Court, Pala, and obtained an interim order against eviction. The petitioner approached this Court for police protection to reside in the same building.

¶28

This Court, in this matter, cannot decide the right of respective parties to reside in the building. Admittedly, the petitioner is also having a right of residing in the building. In such circumstances, the Police should interfere in the matter if there is any law and order situation. If the petitioner wants to stay in the residential building, she can stay. However, the respondent shall not cause any threat to the petitioner for her peaceful residence in the building. The police shall maintain law and order."

¶29

W.P.(C) No.9725 OF 2020(M)

¶30

-4-

¶31

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 and 5, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. On 19.08.2020, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5.

¶33

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, 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

¶34

W.P.(C) No.9725 OF 2020(M)

¶35

-5-

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

"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.

¶39

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."

¶40

In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary

¶41

[(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 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

¶42

W.P.(C) No.9725 OF 2020(M)

¶43

-6-

¶44

Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470] .

¶45

The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions from the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer, would submit that, based on Ext.P5 complaint made by the petitioner, Crime No.542 of 2020 of Karukachal Police Station has already been registered against respondents 4 and 5 and the investigation is in progress. At present, the petitioner is residing along with respondents 4 and 5 and that, the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer shall have a close watch on the place of abode of the petitioner in order to ensure that no threat or harm is caused to the life of the petitioner by respondents 4 and 5.

¶46

The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 would submit that the petitioner is presently residing along with the said respondents and they have no intention to violate Ext.P2 protection order dated 24.03.2020 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Changanassery in M.C.No.21 of 2020.

¶47

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court deem it appropriate to dispose this writ petition by directing the 3^rd respondent Station House

¶48

W.P.(C) No.9725 OF 2020(M)

¶49

-7-

¶50

Officer shall have a close watch on the place of abode of the petitioner in order to ensure that no threat or harm is caused to the life of the petitioner by respondents 4 and 5. In case there is any threat to the life of the petitioner from the hands of respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner shall approach the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer, who shall take necessary action on that complaint, forthwith, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra .

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶53

bpr

¶54

W.P.(C) No.9725 OF 2020(M)

¶55

-8-

¶56

APPENDIX

¶57

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 DATED 14.03.2020. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROTECTION ORDER DATED 24.03.2020 IN MC NO. 21/2020 OF THE JFCM-1, CHANGANACHERRY. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25.03.2020 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶59

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OUTPATIENT RECORD DATED 01.05.2020, ISSUED BY THE GENERAL HOSPITAL, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶60

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 02.05.2020 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.07.2020 SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 25.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.07.2020 REFUSED TO ACCEPT BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2020 IN O.P.NO.322/2020 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALA.

¶61

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶62

EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED BEARING NO.2478/2008 DATED 30.09.2008 OF KARUKACHAL SRO. EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED BEARING NO.1726/2009 DATED 19.10.2009 OF KARUKACHAL SRO.

Ponnamma Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponnamma Jose 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasidharan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Subaida Vs the Authorised Officer

Yousuf P., Vs the Authorized Officer

Chandroth Ramchandran Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Chandroth Dhamodaran Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Govindan Nair @ Methele Rayaroth Govindan Nair Vs the State of Kerala