Smt. Anitha vs The Director General Of Police

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10368 Ker
Judgement Date : 11 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Smt. Anitha vs The Director General Of Police on 11 April, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 2167 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:

    1     SMT. ANITHA
          AGED 45 YEARS
          W/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, RESDING AT GOKUL NIVAS,
          MANJADITHARA MURI, BHARANIKAKUVU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM,
          ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690503
    2     GOKUL G.
          AGED 28 YEARS
          S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, RESDING AT GOKUL NIVAS,
          MANJADITHARA MURI, BHARANIKAVU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM,
          ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690503
    3     RAHUL G
          AGED 26 YEARS
          S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, RESDING AT GOKUL NIVAS,
          MANJADITHARA MURI, BHARANIKAVU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM,
          ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690503
          BY ADVS.
          J.JULIAN XAVIER
          FIROZ K.ROBIN
          ROY JOSEPH
          ANIES MATHEW
          NIRMAL KURIEN EAPEN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
          POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
    2     THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
          CCSB ROAD, MUKHAM PURAYIDOM, CIVIL STATION WARD,
          ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688012
    3     STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          KURATHIKADU, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690107
    4     SMT. SUSEELA
          W/O. SOMAN, SOMA BHAVANAM VEETTIL, MANJADITHARA MURI,
          BHARANIKAVU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA,
          PIN - 690503
    5     SMT. SINDHU
          D/O. SUSEELA, SOMA BHAVANAM VEETTIL, MANJADITHARA
          MURI, BHARANIKAVU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA,
          PIN - 690503
 WP(C) NO. 2167 OF 2024           2

    6     SMT. SREEDEVI
          W/O. KRISHNAN, KRISHNALAL BHAVANAM, MANJADITHARA MURI,
          BHARANIKAVU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA,
          PIN - 690503
    7     UNNIKRISHNAN
          SOMA BHAVANAM VEETTIL, MANJADITHARA MURI, BHARANIKKAVU
          VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690503
    8     KRISHNA RAJ
          KRISHNALAL BHAVANAM, MANJADITHARA MURI, BHARANIKAVU
          VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690503
    9     KRISHNALAL
          BHARANIKAVU, KURATHIKADU, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA,
          PIN - 690503
    10    SRI. RAJESH
          S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, RAJESHBHAVANAM, MANJADITHARA MURI,
          BHARANIKAVU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA,
          PIN - 690503
    11    SRI. RAMACHANDRAN
          S/O. PAPPU, RAJESHBHAVANAM, MANJADITHARA MURI,
          BHARANIKAVU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA,
          PIN - 690503
          BY ADVS.
          R.REJI
          M.V.THAMBAN(K/364/1986)
          THARA THAMBAN(K/497/2001)
          B.BIPIN(K/297/2007)
          ARUN BOSE(K/140/2013)
          JEENA A.V.(K/1146/2006)
          THOMAS THOMAS(K/1181/2023)

          SRI.P.M.SHAMEER, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 2167 OF 2024               3

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioners say that there are certain disputes they have with respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and that they are now threatening and intimidating them for such reason; thus constraining them to have sought protection from the Police which has not been, however, acceded to. They say that, therefore, they have been forced to approach this Court seeking that the Police be directed to afford necessary and adequate protection to them and their properties from the threats meted to them by respondents 4 to 6 and their men, namely respondents 7 to 11.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner - Sri.J.Julian Xavier, further explained that the first petitioner is the mother of petitioners 2 and 3 and that the latter are in search of employment after their graduation and post graduation respectively. He says that, as stated above, petitioner No.1 was attacked by respondents 10 and 11, at the instigation of respondents 4 to 9 on 31.12.2023; and that she was admitted to the Taluk Hospital, Kayamkulam, which matter was reported to the Police through the Hospital. He submitted that in spite of this no action has been taken by the Police though the State Human Rights Commission had issued a direction to such effect which also remains presently unheeded to. He thus reiteratingly prayed that the WP(C) NO. 2167 OF 2024 4 reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted.

3. Sri.R.Reji - learned counsel appearing for respondents 10 and 11, refuted the afore assertions, saying that there are no subsisting disputes between the parties and that his clients are not even neighbours of the petitioners. He added that all the assertions above have been made confutatively and questionably, in order to prejudice his clients; and reasserted that they have, at no point of time, ever caused any threat or intimidation, much less attack, on them in any manner. He submitted that apart from the base allegations, that his clients had attacked the petitioners, not even a document has been produced on record to establish the same. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

4. Sri.P.M.Shameer - learned Government Pleader, however, affirmed that two FIRs have been registered at the instance of the petitioners against the party respondents and that investigation to the same is going on. He, however, pointed out that, as is evident from Ext.P2, the petitioners had reported that it was because the petitioners objected to the drinking habits of respondents 7 to 9, that they had abused the 1st among them and had trespassed into her property; but that all these have been properly investigated into and necessary protection is also being afforded to the petitioners. He concluded saying WP(C) NO. 2167 OF 2024 5 that, a Crime has been registered against the party respondents and Charge Sheet filed; and hence that the petitioners require to harbour their no further apprehension as of now.

5. The endorsements on file indicate that summons has been validly completed on all the party respondents. However, except respondents 10 and 11, the others have refused to appear in person, or to be even represented through counsel; thus constraining me to dispose of this writ petition in their absence.

6. The afore narrative of the rival submissions render it indubitable that there appears to be some disputes between the parties, which may either be in the civil realm or spilling over to criminal imputations. These are not matters into which this Court can enter into or speak conclusively, particularly while acting under the "Police Protection" jurisdiction, which is more so for the reason that the Police appear to be investigating the same or have filed Charge Sheet, as the case may be.

7. As far as this Court is concerned, it is enjoined only to ensure that the lives and properties of the parties are sufficiently protected against each other and their disputes do not degenerate into law and order issues.

WP(C) NO. 2167 OF 2024 6

8. Since the learned Government Pleader undertakes that the afore will be done, I see no reason to keep this writ petition pending on the files of this Court any further.

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed; with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent - Station House Officer to ensure, on a continuous basis, that the lives of the petitioners, as also that the party respondents, are protected against threats from each other; and that neither of them are allowed to take law into their own hands, or to commit any action which is in violation of law.

As far as the investigation of the Crimes are concerned, the Police are obligated to do so and to complete it, if they have not done so; for which the afore directions will not be a hamper or fetter.

It also goes without saying that the Police must ensure that law and order is always maintained and that any violation of the afore directions are dealt with to the fullest warrant of law; and I further order the 2nd respondent to ensure that these directions are implicitly complied with.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/16.4 WP(C) NO. 2167 OF 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2167/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S NO.

281/2020 DATED 08.01.2021 ALONG WITH DECREE Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR NO. 245/2021 OF THE KURATHIKADU POLICE STATION Exhibit P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8-9-2021 IN HRMP NO. 2274/11/1/2021ALP ISSUED BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Exhibit P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR RECEIVING THE COMPLAINT ON 8-5-2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT POLICE STATION Exhibit P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 16-5-2023 IN THE SAME MONTH ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT POLICE STATION Exhibit P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT/PETITION DATED 28-11-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE DISCHARGE REFERENCE CARD DATED 4-1-2024 ISSUED FROM THE TALUK, HOSPITAL, KAYAMKULAM