Disposed

Mariyamath Raseena v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC14 Feb 2024WP(C)/1212/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, wife of an absconding accused, alleged harassment by police during raids at her residence. The respondent counsel denied misconduct. The Court directed the police to investigate without causing harassment or hardship to the petitioner or residents while adhering to CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Direction that police officers shall ensure no harassment or hardship is caused to the petitioner or other residents while investigating the crime and scrupulously comply with the Code of Criminal Pro

Mariyamath Raseena Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 25TH MAGHA, 1945

¶2

WP(C) NO. 1212 OF 2024

¶3

PETITIONER:

¶4

MARIYAMATHRASEENA
AGED19YEARS
D/OLATEMUHAMMEDRAFEEQUE,KAYARKATTEHOUSE,
PAIVALIKEPO,KASARAGOD,PIN-671348

¶5

BYADVK.V.SABU

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANJESWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671121

¶8

2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANJESWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671121

¶9

3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE LAW AND ORDER, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671121

¶10

4 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF PARAKATTA, VIDYANAGAR, KUDLU, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671323

¶11

5 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE LAW AND ORDER, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004

¶12

SMTRASMITHOMAS,GOVERNMENTPLEADER

¶13

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON14.02.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

W.P.C 1212 of 2024

JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she is lawfully wedded to one Kalendar Shafi, who has been arrayed as an accused in a homicide investigation under the jurisdiction of the Kasargod Police Station. She has approached this Court being seriously aggrieved by the relentless and undue harassment meted out by the respondent police officers tasked with the investigation of the aforementioned case. She unequivocally alleges that respondents 1 and 2, with disconcerting regularity, intrude into her residential home, where she is residing with family members, resulting in substantial mental distress to her family members as well as to guests. It is submitted that the action of the officers infringes on her right to reside peacefully within her own home. It is on these assertions that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions.

¶18

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the husband of the petitioner is involved in two murder cases registered as Crime No.493 of 2022 and Crime No.69 of 2014 of the Manjeshwar Police Station. He is also an accused in Crime No.490 of 2022, registered inter alia under Sections 364A and 308 of the IPC. He is absconding and his presence is required for completing the investigation in the above cases. It is stated that it is based on source information that Shafi is hiding in the residential home that the police officers in exercise of

¶19

W.P.C 1212 of 2024

¶20

¶21

their powers had conducted the raid by complying with all legal formalities. It is submitted that the allegation that the petitioner was harassed and mischief was caused in the house is denied. Finally, it is submitted that any action to apprehend the accused shall only be carried out in strict adherence to the provisions of the law.

¶22

I have considered the submissions advanced. From the submissions advanced, it appears that the husband of the petitioner is an absconding accused and all measures are being taken by the police to apprehend him. It was when source information was received that Sri. Shafi was hiding in the house that the search was conducted. Be that as it may, the police officers shall ensure that no harassment or hardship is caused to the petitioner or the other residents while investigating the crime. The officer shall also scrupulously comply with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure while conducting the investigation.

¶23

Subject to the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

IAP

Mariyamath Raseena v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariyamath Raseena v. Sub 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

Shaheed P.K Vs the State of Kerala

M.Krishnaprasad Vs The Registrar of Co-operative Societies

Ahammed Kutty Vs C v M Sharief

Jenet J Vs the Secretary, Paravur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Biju a Mathew Vs Cheruthazham Service Co-Operative Bank

Ammini Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies