Kerala High Court

Gireesh Mohan vs The District Police Chief on 15 February, 2021

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

     MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.1187 OF 2021(W)


PETITIONERS:

      1        GIREESH MOHAN
               AGED 35 YEARS
               S/O. MOHANAN PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, ANIZHAM TRAVELS,
               GEETHALAYAM, VALIYAKUZHI MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE,
               CHEPPAD, ALAPPUZHA.

      2        ROHITH RAMACHANDRAN
               AGED 33 YEARS
               S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, MANAGER, ANIZHAM TRAVELS, UPASANA
               HOUSE, AYIKKAD MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, CHEPPAD,
               ALAPPUZHA.

               BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL

RESPONDENTS:
       1     THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
             ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 012.

      2        THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION,
               KAREELAKULANGARA, PIN-690 572.

      3        THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               HARIPPAD POLICE STATION, HARIPPAD, PIN-690 514.

      4        RANJITH, AGED 23 YEARS
               S/O. RAJU, KAIPPALLY KIZHAKKEKANDATHIL HOUSE,
               KANJOOR, KOTTAKAKAM, CHEPPAD VILLAGE,
               KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 516.

      5        AKHILRAJ
               AGED 30 YEARS
               S/O. RAJENDRAN, RAJ BHAVANAM, VALIYAKUZHI MURI,
               CHEPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 507.

      6        GOKUL G.NATH
               AGED 27 YEARS
               S/O. GOPINATHAN, NANTHANAM HOUSE,
               VALIYAKUZHI MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE,
               ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 507.
 WP(C).No.1187 OF 2021(W)

                                2

       7      SIJO JOHN
              AGED 29 YEARS
              S/O. JOHN SAMUEL, SIJO VILLA, VALIYAKUZHI MURI,
              CHEPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 507.

            R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SUNIL NATH N.B
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.1187 OF 2021(W)

                                   3

                              JUDGMENT

The 1st petitioner is a non-resident Indian and proprietor of

Anizham Travels and the 2nd petitioner the Manager of that Travels,

which is situated near Kanjoor Devi Temple. The petitioners have

filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to

afford adequate and effective police protection to the life and

properties of the petitioners and for the smooth conduct of

business of the establishment, namely, Anizham Travels,

Geethalayam, Valiyakuzhi Muri, Cheppad Village, Cheppad. In the

writ petition it is alleged that, on 03.01.2021, at about 11.30 am,

respondents 4 to 7 trespassed into the Office of Anizham Travels,

shouted abusive words on the 1 st petitioner and his parents and

attacked the 2nd petitioner with a dangerous weapon. They also

committed theft of a gold chain and caused damages to a vehicle

parked in front of of the Travels. Based on the statement given by

the 2nd petitioner, the Police registered Crime No.20/2021 of

Kareelakulangara Police Station.

2. On 15.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on WP(C).No.1187 OF 2021(W)

admission for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice on admission by

special messenger was ordered to respondents 4 to 7, returnable

by 18.01.2021. The learned Government Pleader was directed to

get instructions.

3. On 18.01.2021, respondents 4 to 7 entered appearance

through counsel and sought one week's time to file counter

affidavit. The learned Government Pleader also sought further time

to get instructions from respondents 2 and 3. By an interim order,

respondents 2 and 3 were directed to ensure that there is no

threat to law and order in the locality, at the instance of

respondents 4 to 7.

4. Along with the memo filed by the learned Government

Pleader dated 30.01.2021, a statement on behalf of the 3 rd

respondent Sub Inspector of Police is placed on record. As can be

seen from the said statement, a crime has already been registered

against the party respondents as Crime No.20/2021 of

Kareelakulangara Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 149, 451,

323, 324, 326 and 427 IPC, which is pending investigation.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also

the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. WP(C).No.1187 OF 2021(W)

6. 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

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.

7. Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian WP(C).No.1187 OF 2021(W)

Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police thus;

"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.

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."

8. In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary

[(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 Ankush Maruti

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

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and

also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides,

this Court finds that a crime has already registered against

respondents 4 to 7 in connection with the incident that happened WP(C).No.1187 OF 2021(W)

on 03.01.2021, as Crime No.20/2021 of Kareelakulangara Police

Station, which is pending investigation. The learned Government

Pleader, on instructions, would submit that at present there is no

law and order issues in the locality.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with

the following directions:

(i) In case there is any threat to the life and property of the petitioners from the side of respondents 4 to 7 or their men, the petitioners shall move the 3rd respondent Station House Officer with a request for Police protection.

(iii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioners, the 3rd respondent shall take necessary action on that request, without any delay, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

                                            ANIL K.NARENDRAN
JV                                                      JUDGE
 WP(C).No.1187 OF 2021(W)





                               APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED