Mary Colete John vs The Station House Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 14028 Ker

WP(C) NO. 10725 OF 2021                      1



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

           WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1943

                              WP(C) NO. 10725 OF 2021

PETITIONER/S:

                 MARY COLETE JOHN
                 AGED 58 YEARS
                 LANA COTTAGE, OPP. DOMESTIC AIRPORT, VALYATHOPE,
                 TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 008

                 BY ADV PRAVEEN VYASAN



RESPONDENT/S:

      1          THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
                 SHANGHUMUGHAM POLICE STATION, BEACH P.O,
                 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 008

      2          COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
                 TRIVANDRUM CITY, POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, THYCAUD,
                 TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 014

      3          IRENE JOHN,
                 FIRST FLOOR, LANA COTTAGE, OPP. DOMESTIC AIRPORT,
                 VALYATHOPE, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 008

      4          DAVIS SEBASTIAN,
                 FIRST FLOOR, LANA COTTAGE, OPP. DOMESTIC AIRPORT,
                 VALYATHOPE, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 008

                 BY ADVS.
                 GOVERNMENT PLEADER
                 NAVEEN THOMAS
                 TITTO THOMAS
                 S.VAISAKH



OTHER PRESENT:

                 SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH, GP


          THIS   WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)       HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON

07.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 10725 OF 2021               2




                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                 --------------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C.) No.10725 of 2021
                    --------------------------------------
                Dated this the 7th day of July, 2021


                              JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers :

"i) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 1 st and 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P1 and P2 complaints as expeditiously as possible.

ii) Direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to offer adequate protection to the life and property of the petitioner.

iii) Issue any other Writ, Order or Directions which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. When this matter came up for consideration on

30.4.2021, this Court passed the following order :

"Government Pleader takes notice for R1 and R2. Notice by speed post to respondents 3 & 4. In view of the peculiar circumstances projected in the writ petition, the 1st respondent shall verify the allegations personally instead of deputing any subordinate and do the needful in accordance with law.

Post on 14.5.2021 for instructions on the above steps adopted."

3. Thereafter, the matter again came up on

14.5.2021 and this Court passed a detailed order on that

day also, which is extracted hereunder :

"After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to an interim order directing the 1st respondent to ensure that she faces no threat or other form of intimidation from respondents 3 and 4.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1 st respondent may also be directed to personally enquire into the

complaints submitted by the petitioner, as this court had through order dated 30.04.2021 specifically directed the 1 st respondent to do the needful without deputing any subordinate officer.

3. I direct the 1st respondent to cause enquiry into Ext.P1 complaint as directed in the order dated 30.4.2021 by himself without deputing any subordinate police officers for the same. Post on 31.05.2021 for the statement from the 1 st respondent which shall specially indicate the action taken by him pursuant to this order."

4. Thereafter, the case was posted on several

occasions. On 22.6.2021, the matter came up for

consideration and this Court passed the following order :

"Both sides submitted that the writ petition can be finally heard on 1.7.2021. The counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that they have filed a counter. The Government Pleader also submitted that a statement is filed. Registry will enclose the counter affidavit and statement along with the writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner is free to file a reply in the meanwhile. The case will be taken up for final hearing positively on 1.7.2021."

5. Thereafter, the matter again came up for

consideration before this Court on 01.07.2021. On that day

also, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he want

to file a reply affidavit. Then again, the case is posted

finally to this date (on 07.07.2021). Today also, the counsel

for the petitioner submitted that he want to file a reply and

he want to implead several other senior police officers and

to amend the writ petition with some other reliefs.

6. The counsel for the contesting respondents

submitted that the allegations in the writ petition are not

correct and under the guise of the interim order passed by

this Court, the petitioner is trying to interfere with the civil

disputes between the parties. He insisted for an early

hearing of this case.

7. This Court, as per the order dated 14.05.2021,

directed the 1st respondent to visit the house of the

petitioner and file a detailed report before this Court. As

directed by this Court, the officer concerned filed a detailed

report. The relevant portion of the report is extracted

hereunder :

"4. It is submitted that petitioner was residing along with her mother Elsy John in Lana cottage, Valiyathope. Elsy John have four children. Petitioner Mary Colete John is the Elder daughter, Irene PP John is the second daughter, Berlin is the third daughter and Joseph Sabin John is the only son and youngest one. Irene PP John and Joseph Sabin John are Malaysian citizens and Berlin along with her family settled in United States of America. In 1985 Petitioner met with serious and horrific accident at Malaysia and confined to a wheel chair. Petitioners mother Elsy John possessed the ownership of the entire assets belongs to her family. On 07.04.2021 Smt. Elsy John passed away. From 2018 December Irene PP John along with her husband, mother in law and four children came to this house for celebrating Christmas vacation after that children went back to Malaysia. Irene PP John her husband, mother in law stayed back for looking after her mother and petitioner. Petitioner and her mother resides in the ground floor of Lana Cottage and Irene PP John her husband, mother in law resides in the first floor of Lana Cottage.

5. It is submitted that owing to the death of Smt.Elsy John her son Sri. Joseph Sabin John returned from Malaysia for attending the funeral function of his mother. And there after Joseph Sabin John and her wife Josephine took after the charge of the care taker of the petitioner. It is revealed that Joseph Sabin John and petitioner is on one side and Irene PP John on the other side for the ownership of the Lana cottage and peripheral 23 cents of land. This is a clear case of land and property dispute.

6. It is submitted that in my investigation it is revealed that petitioner and respondent 3 are residing in same building now. Before the death of petitioners mother Smt. Elsy John, both the petitioner and her mother were under the protection of respondent 3 and were maintain a harmonious relationship. The petitioners brother Joseph Sabin John arrived in petitioners house only after the death of petitioners mother after a long period. On investigation it is revealed that he had not in a good relationship with the petitioners mother. Before the death of petitioners mother, petitioners brother resides in his own residence near petitioners house. He takes the protection of petitioner only after the death of their mother. Before the entry of Mr.Joseph Sabin John, respondent 3 Smt.Irene PP John look after her mother and petitioner in a well manner. The Harmonious relation breaks only after the entry of the petitioners brother Mr.Joseph Sabin John and family it to the petitioners house. On investigation it is also revealed that the basic issue behind this quarrel is the partition of the family property.

7. It is submitted that petitioner is 65 year old sick and differently able lady fearing that, due to this property dispute her life is in a danger situation."

8. In the above report, it is clearly stated that there

is some property dispute between the parties. But, in the

report, it is specifically stated that the petitioner is a 65

year old sick and a differently abled lady. According to the

officer, there is danger to the life of the petitioner. In such

circumstances, according to me, the life of the petitioner is

to be protected. Hence necessary directions can be issued

to the 1st and 2nd respondents to see that there is no danger

to the life of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is a

sick lady and she want help from others for day to day life.

The first and second respondents will see that some

officers of the police station are visiting her house

regularly and see that there is no threat to the life of the

petitioner. But as far as the right of the petitioner and the

contesting respondents in the property, house etc., the

same is to be decided by the competent civil court. All the

contentions of the petitioner and the contesting

respondents about the property dispute are left open. That

will be decided by the competent civil court, if parties

approach the civil court. But, I make it clear that the police

officers should see that there is no danger to the life of the

petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with

the following directions.

(1)The first and second respondents will afford adequate

police protection to the life of the petitioner.

(2)The second respondent, the Commissioner of Police,

Thiruvananthapuram will see that some officers from the

local police visit the house of the petitioner regularly and

see that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner.

(3)If there is any other law and order issue, the petitioner is

free to file a complaint to the officer, who is visiting her

house regularly.

(4)All the contentions of the petitioner and the contesting

respondents regarding the property right, and other civil

disputes are left open.

(5)If there is any criminal offence is made out based on the

complaint from the petitioner against respondent Nos. 3

and 4, the officer concerned will take necessary steps, in

accordance to law.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10725/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.04.2021 MAILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS AS WELL AS TO THE DGP OF POLICE.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER EMAIL ON 22.04.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE POLICE.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R3(A) THE TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO.2969/2013 OF SRO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

EXHIBIT R3(B) THE TRUE COPY OF WILL DEED NUMBERED AS 328/III/2018 OF SRO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

EXHIBIT R3(C) THE TRUE COPY OF SAID POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED EXECUTED BY MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER