Sudheer E.R vs Sasidharan Pilla.M
2021 Latest Caselaw 405 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

   WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

         Con.Case(C).No.2028 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 19961/2020

  INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) 19961/2020(U) DATED 28.09.2020 OF HIGH
                         COURT OF KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C).19961/2020:

             SUDHEER E.R.
             AGED 47 YEARS
             S/O. RAPPAI, ELUVATHINKAL HOUSE, VIDYANAGAR DESOM,
             OLLUR VILLAGE, ANCHERY P.O, THRISSUR.

             BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) 19961/2020:

             SASIDHARAN PILLA.M
             S/O. AND AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, NOW
             WORKING AS THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANNUTHY POLICE
             STATION, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR-680 651.




             SMT SHEEJA CS SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case(C).No.2028 OF 2020

IN WP(C). 19961/2020                   2




                                 JUDGMENT

This Contempt case is filed alleging non-compliance of the interim order

dated 28.9.2020 issued by this Court granting protection to the life and property

of the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, on 30.9.2020, the 5th respondent in the

writ petition attacked him and injuries were inflicted. The incident occurred since

no effective protection was granted to the petitioner. He would further contend

that even after reporting the incident, no crime was registered.

3. The learned Government pleader on instructions submitted that the

alleged incident had happened on 30.9.2020 while the petitioner herein was in

the fish market. A crime was registered based on the information furnished by

the petitioner and after completing the investigation, the final report has been

laid. There are no laches on the part of the respondent is the submission.

4. I have considered the submissions. It appears that the interim order

was passed on 28.09.2020 and the incident had occurred on 30.9.2020 in a public

area. The police have acted diligently and a crime has been registered. Having

considered the submissions, I do not think that any case of contempt is made out Con.Case(C).No.2028 OF 2020

in the instant case. The petition may pursue his remedies and the respondent

shall ensure that the interim order is complied with in its letter and spirit.

This contempt case is closed.

Sd/-

                                               RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

                                                           JUDGE
NS
                                           //TRUE COPY//          P.A.TO JUDGE
 Con.Case(C).No.2028 OF 2020




                           APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A             CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN
                       W.P.C 19961/2020 DATED 28.9.2020

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

                         NIL