Dismissed

A.K.Ashraf v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Apr 2024WP(C)/2522/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging threats to his life by respondents over property disputes involving his son. The court, aided by the Government Pleader's assurance of no existing law and order issues, disposed of the petition while granting liberty for future protection.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach Station House Officer for protection if threat arises in future.

A.K.Ashraf Vs the State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶4

WP(C) NO. 2522 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

A.K.ASHRAF, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA KUNJU,
RESIDING AT PUTHAN PURAYIL HOUSE,
ARAFA NAGAR- 49, ERAVIPURAM,
KOLLAM, PIN – 691011

¶7

BY ADVS.
S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)
K.VIJAYAN
NAMITHA RAJESH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001

¶10

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM, PIN – 691011

¶11

3 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM, PIN – 691001

¶12

4 SHIDHU M.S., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. MADHU M.S, RESIDING AT M.S.NIVAS, KOTTAKUPURAM, CLAPANA P.O., VALLIKAVU, KOLLAM, PIN – 690525

¶13

5 NOUSHAD, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. HAMEED, RESIDING AT MAHIMANZIL, ZAMZAM NAGAR-71, ERAVIPURAM.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN – 691011

¶14

BY ADVS.
B N HASKAR
B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN(K/37/1994)
SRI P M SHAMEER-GP
SRI B K GOPALAKRISHNAN-R4

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 2522/24

JUDGMENT

The petitioner say s that he is an activist as also the President

¶20

of an Association, living with three children and wife. He concedes that his elder son has involved himself in certain fiscal transactions with the party respondents, for which he is not responsible at all; but that the said respondents are now forcing him to assign his property in their favour, or to persons of their choice, threatening him that if he does not do so, he and his family will be done away with. He says that, therefore, he preferred Ext.P1 complaint before the 2 nd respondent – Station House Officer, but that no action has been taken thereon until now; thus constraining him to approach this Court through this Writ Petition .

¶21

2 . The afore submissions of Sri.S.Sreekumar – learned counsel for the petitioner, were vehemently controverted by Sri.Gopalakrishnan – learned counsel for the party respondents, saying that his clients have neither threatened or intimidated the petitioner at any point of time, nor have they made any demand as alleged afore. He submitted that his clients have taken legal action

¶22

¶23

WPC 2522/24

¶24

against the petitioner’s son and they also suspect that the petitioner

¶25

is also involved in the transaction, for which, they only intend to pursue necessary remedies as permitted in law. He concluded his submissions saying that the intent of the petitioner is to frustrate all such remedies of his clients and therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

¶26

3 . Sri.P.M.Shameer - learned Government Pleader, affirmed that there are no law and order issues as far as the petitioner is concerned and that he and his family are not under any threat from the party respondents. He added that there appears to be certain disputes between the petitioner’s son and the party respondents, but that these are not matters which have degenerated into any law and order issue as alleged. He undertook that, in case the petitioner requires any assistance in future, it shall be made available to him on proper request.

¶27

Taking note of the afore submissions and recording the afore undertakings of the learned Government Pleader , I dispose of this Writ Petition, leaving liberty to the petitioner to approach the 2 nd respondent – Station House Officer for protection, if and when any

¶28

WPC 2522/24

¶29

¶30

requirement for such arises; in which event, the said Authority will

¶31

look into the same and take necessary action without any avoidable

¶32

. delay

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

RR

¶35

 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

WPC 2522/24

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2522/2024

¶40

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN TO THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.01.2024

A.K.Ashraf v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.K.Ashraf v. the State of Kerala

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

Premkumar Vs the Mundiappally Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.A9

K.C. Thomas Vs the Mundiappally Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.A9

Sijeesh M.P Vs Shaji K.H

Mary Sadan Apg Pvt. Ltd. Vs Snehil Kumar Singh

Sarada Vs the District Police Chief

Ramya.K.P Vs Sale Officer