Kerala High Court
Ayisha T.K vs District Police Chief on 1 July, 2021
WP(C) NO. 1211 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 1211 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
1 AYISHA T.K
AGED 45 YEARS
D/O.HAMEED KPP, RESIDING AT WHITE HOUSE,
UDUMBANTHALA, UDUMBANTHALA PO, SOUTH THRIKKARIPUR,
KASARGOD DISTRICT 671 311.
2 MUHAMMED ASHIK T K
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.AYISHA T K, RESIDING AT WHITE HOUSE,
UDUMBANTHALA, UDUMBANTHALA PO, SOUTH THRIKKARIPUR,
KASARGOD DISTRICT 671 311.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
SRI.K.P.ANTONY BINU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KASARGOD DISTRICT, VIDYANAGAR PO, KASARGOD DISTRICT,
671 123.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT 671 311.,
3 SREEDHARAN @ PADMANABHAN,
AGED 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VALIYAKUTHIR, UDUMBANTHALA, UDUMBANTHALA
PO, SOUTH THRIKKARIPUR, KASARGOD DISTRICT 671 311.
4 PRADEEPAN,
AGED 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MADAKKAL, UDUMBANTHALA, UDUMBANTHALA PO
SOUTH THRIKKARIPUR, KASARGOD DISTRICT 671 311.
5 BALAN,
AGED 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VALIYAKUTHIR, NEAR RIZAI MASJID,
WP(C) NO. 1211 OF 2021 2
UDUMBANTHALA, UDUMBANTHALA PO, SOUTH THRIKKARIPUR,
KASARGOD DISTRICT 671 311.
6 VIJAYAN
AGED 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT VALIYAKUTHIR, UDUMBANTHALA, UDUMBANTHALA
PO, SOUTH THRIKKARIPUR, KASARGOD DISTRICT 671 311.
R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.THAJUDEEN P P
R3 TO R6 BY ADV.SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 1211 OF 2021 3
JUDGMENT
The 1st petitioner is the mother of the 2nd petitioner. They have
approached this Court seeking appropriate directions to respondent Nos.1 and
2 to render sufficient police protection to the life of the petitioners from
respondent Nos.3 to 6.
2. The petitioners contend that the 3rd respondent is their neighbour
and the rest of the respondents are his associates. It is stated that taking
advantage of the fact that the 1st petitioner who is a divorcee, the party
respondents started to dump waste into her property and destroyed her
plants. The petitioner in the said circumstances approached the 2nd
respondent and lodged a complaint. The party respondents were summoned
and they were ordered not to repeat the offensive acts. She contends that on
24.10.2020, the party respondents trespassed into her property and
committed mischief. Local people including political leaders intervened and
convinced the petitioners that the disputes can be sorted out. On 01.11.2020,
the respondents on the pretext of purchasing peace, came to the residential
home of the petitioners and inflicted injuries on the 2nd petitioner. Due to the
threats of the party respondents, the 2nd petitioner had to flee and come to
Ernakulam. He underwent treatment in some private hospital. Ext.P1 is the
treatment card issued to him. Ext.P2 complaint was lodged by the 1st
petitioner before the 2nd respondent on 7.11.2020, but no action was taken.
Later, on 9.11.2020, the 2nd petitioner went to the police station and lodged a
complaint based on which Crime No.998 of 2020 of the Chandera Police
Station was registered inter alia under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 323,
324, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The petitioners state that though
they are facing serious threats from the party respondents, the 2nd
respondent is adopting a lackadaisical attitude. Instead of diligently
investigating the crime, they have lodged a report before the police deleting
Section 452 of the IPC. They contend that the 2nd respondent is providing
shelter from penal action to the party respondents. In the said circumstances,
they have lodged Exhibits-P5 to P8 representations before the higher Police
officials. Their grievance is that no action is being taken. It is in the afore
circumstances that the petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction to
respondent Nos.1 and 2 to render effective protection to the life and property
of the petitioners from respondent Nos.3 to 6 and their men.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement, wherein it is stated
that the petitioners as well as the party respondents are neighbours. It is
further stated that there were some discrepancies in the complaint lodged by
the 2nd petitioner and it was in the said circumstances that Section 452 was
deleted after investigation. Final report was laid before the jurisdictional court
and the case is pending before the learned magistrate. It is further stated that
there is no law and order situation prevailing in the locality and if any incident
is reported, expeditious legal action shall be initiated.
4. The party respondents have filed a counter affidavit denying the
allegations. In their counter, they state that the 3rd respondent had purchased
property near to the residence of the petitioners herein. A minor incident took
place in the public road between the 2nd petitioner and the 3rd respondent.
Though no injuries were sustained, the 2nd petitioner left the District and
went to Ernakulam. Ext.P1 Emergency Department Registration Card would
not reveal any injuries and this would falsify the prosecution version. The long
delay in setting the law in motion is also highlighted. According to the party
respondents, the petitioners have lodged the complaint on communal
considerations. They have no intention to take the law into their own hands
and according to them, the allegations are cooked up and exaggerated.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced.
6. From Exhibit-P3 FIR, it is apparent that it is in respect of an
incident that took place on 01.11.2020, that a complaint was lodged on
09.11.2020 and a crime was registered. Ext.P1 treatment registration card
issued by the concerned Doctor of the General Hospital does not reveal that
any serious injuries were noted by the Doctor on 4.11.2020, when the 2nd
petitioner was examined. It is borne out from the submissions that the police
have swiftly concluded the investigation and final report has been laid. It also
appears that there are no law and order issues at the moment. The party
respondents have undertaken that they have no intention to take law into
their own hands. The said submission is recorded. In Spite of the above, if
the respondents intimidate the petitioners or take law into their own hands,
the petitioners shall lodge a complaint before the 2nd respondent, who shall
enquire into the genuineness of the assertions and take appropriate action.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
NS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1211/2021
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EMERGENCY TREATMENT
REGISTRATION CARD ISSUED BY GENERAL
HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 7.11.2020
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.998/2020
REGISTERED BY CHANDERA POLICE STATION ON
9.11.2020
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 12.11.2020
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 22.11.2020
BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT/REPRESENTATION
DATED 1.12.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF
MINISTER
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT/REPRESENTATION
DATED 1.12.2020 BEFORE THE DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
11.1.2021 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL
