Disposed

Vinu Joseph v. the Circle Inspector of Police

Kerala HC19 Feb 2024WP(C)/1467/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An employee alleged obstruction by the 4th respondent and sought police action on her complaint and protection to attend office. The 4th respondent denied obstructing her; civil suits over a pathway were pending. The court recorded his undertaking that he would not obstruct passage and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Undertaking by 4th respondent recorded; parties may approach police on any disruption of law and order.

Vinu Joseph Vs the Circle Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY,THE19THDAYOFFEBRUARY2024/30THMAGHA,1945

¶5

WP(C)NO.1467OF2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VINUJOSEPH,AGED51YEARS,D/O.JOSEPH,
KURUVINATHARAYIL,CHETTUPUZHA,THRISSUR,
PIN-680012

¶8

BYADVP.K.ANIL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680567

¶11

2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680664

¶12

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL)THRISSUR, PIN - 680501

¶13

4 PREMDAS, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. AANDIKUTTY, THANDASSERY HOUSE, VALAPPAD P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680567

¶14

BYADVO.D.SIVADAS

¶15

SMTCSSHEEJA,SR.GOVERNMENTPLEADER

¶16

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON19.02.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

WPC 1467 of 2024

JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she is an employee of Manappuram Finance Ltd., a non-banking finance company. It is stated that while she was traveling to her office, the 4th respondent, who harbors a grudge against Manappuram Finance, obstructed her. In the said circumstances, she approached the 1st respondent and filed a complaint on 10.01.2024. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to initiate appropriate action on Ext.P1 complaint and to afford sufficient protection to the petitioner, allowing her to attend the office at Valapad.

¶21

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent. It is stated that Manappuram Finance is running a school in the name and style of Manageetharavi Public School. The property was purchased from the 4th respondent and his relatives, with a common pathway provided for ingress and egress. When the finance company tried to widen the pathway, the 4th respondent approached the Civil Court and filed a suit. It is emphatically asserted that the allegation that the 4th respondent has obstructed the petitioner is absolutely incorrect and the said allegation will be falsified if the

¶22

WPC 1467 of 2024

¶23

¶24

CCTV cameras placed in the area is viewed. He asserts that he has no intention to obstruct the passage of any of the employees of Manappuram

¶25

Finance. It is stated that in respect of an incident that took place on 9.01.2024 at Valapad Town, a writ petition was filed the next day itself, which would prima facie show that the allegations are cooked up.

¶26

The learned Government Pleader submits that no incident of the nature alleged had occurred. It is stated that civil suits are pending, and if there is any obstruction or disruption of law and order, either of the parties can approach the police, who shall take appropriate action.

¶27

I have considered the submissions advanced. I record the

¶28

undertaking of the 4th respondent that he has no intention to obstruct the passage of any of the employees. If there is any disruption of law and order situation, either of the parties can approach the police, who shall ascertain

¶29

the genuineness of the allegations and take appropriate action.

¶30

This petition is disposed of.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

IAP

WPC 1467 of 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1467/2024

¶37

PETITIONER’SEXHIBITS:

¶38

ExhibitP1TRUECOPYOFTHECOMPLAINTPREFERREDBYTHE
PETITIONERTOTHERESPONDENTS1TO3DATED
10.1.2024

Vinu Joseph v. the Circle Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinu Joseph v. the Circle 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

James Varghese Vs Junior Inspector/ Special Sale Officer

P. Prasanna Vs Santhosh Kumar M

M v Suvarnany Vs Preisding Officer

Benny Philip Vs 1. Anapanthy Service Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Ajith Sankar C Vs P.Padmakumar

V.U.Sreejith Vs 1. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)