Muhammed Kunju vs The District Police Chief
2021 Latest Caselaw 19377 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                        PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

         THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 25TH BHADRA, 1943

                             WP(C) NO. 14002 OF 2021

PETITIONER:

               MUHAMMED KUNJU
               AGED 66 YEARS
               S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU, KODAAKULANGARA PADEETTATHIL,
               MENAMBALLY MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 583.

               BY ADVS.
               J.OM PRAKASH
               T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)
               C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT
               T.S.BHARATH KRISHNA
               EMMANUAL SANJU
               KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW
               S.PRAHALADAN



RESPONDENTS:

     1         THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
               KOLLAM, LINK ROAD, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-691 001.

     2         THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
               CHAVARA POLICE STATION, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583.

     3         ABDUL HAKKIM
               AGED 42 YEARS
               S/O. KOYAKUTTY ASAN, KOLLANTETHEKKATHIL, KOTTUKAD WARD,
               MUKUNDAPURAM P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM, 680 783 (WORKING AS S.I. OF
               POLICE ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR)-680 584.

     4         AZAAD
               AGED 29 YEARS
               S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, KODAAKULANGARA PADEETTATHIL, MENAMBALLY
               MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT DAARUL AMAN HOUSE,
               MANAYKKAD JUNCTION, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE-690 501, ALAPPUZHA
               DISTRICT.

               BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.09.2021,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 14002 OF 2021

                                          2




                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that he is being

subjected to constant threats and intimidation by respondents 3 and 4;

and, therefore, that the 2nd respondent - Station House Officer, is

enjoined to offer him adequate and effective protection for his life.

2. The petitioner alleges that even though he had approached

the 2nd respondent through Ext.P3 complaint seeking protection, no

action had been taken thereon, thus constraining him to have

approached this Court through this writ petition.

3. The petitioner thus prays that the 2 nd respondent be directed to

ensure that his life is protected from respondents 3 and 4, particularly

because there were earlier incidents when he had been assaulted by

them.

4. I have heard Sri.T.G.Sunil - learned counsel for the

petitioner; Sri.Shajin S.Hameed - learned counsel appearing for

respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Government Pleader -

Sri.E.C.Bineesh, appearing for the official respondents.

5. Sri.Shajin S.Hameed submitted that the allegations in this

writ petition are wholly untrue and that, as is evident from Ext.P2, there

are disputes between the parties. He explained that the disputes are all WP(C) NO. 14002 OF 2021

in the civil and matrimonial realm, and that his clients are the brother-

in-law and the son of the petitioner. He then added that his clients have

not and do not intend to cause any threat, intimidation or violence

against the petitioner and prayed that this Court dismiss this writ

petition without any further orders.

6. The learned Government Pleader - Sri.E.C.Bineesh,

submitted that, resultant to the interim order of this Court dated

14.07.2021, the Police have ensured that law and order has been

maintained and that there has been no breach of peace by anyone. He

thus prayed that this writ petition be ordered, confirming the said

interim order.

7. When I consider the afore submissions and in particular that of

Smt.Shajin S. Hameed, it is indubitable that it will not be necessary for

this Court to enter into the dialectical contentions of the parties on their

merits, since this Court is only concerned that the life of the petitioner

is adequately protected. Since the party respondents say that they have

no intention to cause any threat or intimidation to him, I deem it

appropriate to allow this writ petition, confirming the interim order, as

suggested by the learned Government Pleader.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition, confirming

the interim order dated 14.07.2021; thus directing the 2 nd respondent to WP(C) NO. 14002 OF 2021

ensure that the life of the petitioner is adequately and effectively

protected from every threat or intimidation from any source.

Needless to say, respondents 3 and 4 are at full liberty to pursue

any legal remedies that they may have initiated or intend to initiate

against the petitioner, and it is clarified that my observations above will

not trammel or prejudice such, in any manner whatsoever.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv/rp

Spoken to on 17.09.2021:

This matter has been listed today for being spoken to at the

request of Sri.Shajin S. Hameed - learned counsel appearing for the

party respondents.

2. Sri.Shajin S. Hameed submitted that when this matter was

considered yesterday, it was omitted to be brought to the notice of this

Court that there are three criminal cases pending against the petitioner

and that he had even attacked a Court Amin deputed from the Family

Court. He submitted that his clients apprehend that the directions afore WP(C) NO. 14002 OF 2021

ordered in this judgment may have the unwitting effect of impeding the

investigations.

3. I am afraid that the afore apprehension expressed by

Sri.Shajin S. Hameed is without any basis because, in the judgment I

have only allowed protection to the petitioner's life and nothing more. If

there are crimes pending against him or he has committed actions

which are contrary to law, certainly, necessary consequences will have

to follow and he will not get any benefit merely because this Court has

directed the Police to protect his life. This is clarified.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE RR WP(C) NO. 14002 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14002/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF OP NO.270/2021 DATED 30.3.2021 FILED BY THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 5.7.2021 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA BY THE PETITIONER IN OP 270/2021.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.6.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.7.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.