Asharaf vs The Station House Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 20339 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 8TH ASWINA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 15239 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

              ASHARAF, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. P.V. ALIYAR,
              PUDUKUDY HOUSE, MELEKOTTATHARA, KOTTATHARA P.O.,
              MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

              BY ADVS.
              K.MOHANAKANNAN
              P.C.CHACKO(K)


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
              SHOLAYUR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678582.

     2        NISHAMOL P.A., PUDUKUDY HOUSE, KAVUNDIKKAL P.O.,
              NAKKUPATHY, AGALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678581.

              BY ADVS.
              B.DEEPAK
              T.C.SURESH MENON
              E C BINEESH -GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 15239/21
                                           2



                              JUDGMENT

This is a rather unfortunate case where the

personal disputes between the petitioner and the

2nd respondent - who is his sister, have now

reached such a stage that the jurisdiction of this

Court is being invoked for Police protection.

2. The petitioner says that he is the owner

of a hotel by name 'Kerala Hotel' in Mannarkkad,

Palakkad and that its operation is now being

obstructed by the 2nd respondent, who claims

certain amounts from him. He says that the 2 nd

respondent cannot claim any such amounts, nor are

any amounts due to her; and therefore, that he

approached the 1st respondent - Station House

Officer through Ext.P4 complaint, but alleges that

since no action has been taken thereon, he has

been constrained to approach this Court, through

this Writ Petition.

WPC 15239/21

3. Sri.B.Deepak - learned counsel appearing

for the 2nd respondent, submitted that a counter

affidavit has been filed on record by his client,

wherein, she has explained how she claims amounts

from the petitioner - her brother. He submitted

that his client is not obstructing the running of

hotel, but is only engaged in a peaceful 'dharna'

and protest therein, so as to force the petitioner

to accede to her legitimate claim. He then added

that the 2nd respondent neither has any intention

of causing obstruction to the activities of the

hotel, nor to threaten the petitioner or any of

his staff; and therefore, that his action in

having approached the Police for protection is

only to frustrate her legitimate claims. He,

therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be

dismissed.

4. The learned Government Pleader -

Sri.E.C.Bineesh appearing for the 1st respondent -

Station House Officer, submitted that in terms of WPC 15239/21

the interim order of this Court dated 30.07.2021,

the Police are ensuring that there are no law and

order issues in the area, where the petitioner is

running the hotel and that this will be continued

to be ensured in future also.

5. When I consider the afore submissions

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the 2nd respondent, it is clear that their

disputes are ones which cannot be resolved by this

Court. The 2nd respondent will have to invoke her

appropriate remedies, but cannot cause obstruction

to the running of the hotel or threaten or

intimidate the petitioner or his employees.

In the afore circumstances and noticing the

submission of Sri.Deepak - learned counsel for the

2nd respondent, that his client does not intend to

do create any harassment to the petitioner, I

allow this Writ Petition and direct the 1st

respondent - Station House Officer to intervene as

and when any complaint is made by the petitioner WPC 15239/21

with respect to any threat, intimidation or

obstruction caused by any person, including the

2nd respondent and her men.

Needless to say, the 2nd respondent is at full

liberty to invoke all her legal remedies, as are

available to her, for the purpose of recovery of

the amounts claimed by her from the petitioner, in

terms of law.

Sd/-

RR                                  DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                         JUDGE
 WPC 15239/21


               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15239/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1          TRUE COPY OF THE D&O LICENCE ISSUED TO

THE PETITIONER FOR CONDUCTING THE HOTEL FROM SHOLAYUR GRAMA PACHAYAT DATED 01/04/2020.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN DATED 09/03/2020.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/06/2018.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLIANT FILED FILED THE 1ST RESPONDENT STATION HOUSE OFFICER ON 24/07/2021 WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

RESPONDENTS EXTS:

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION EXT.R2(A) SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ASP, AGALI, DATED 2.7.2021.

TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 5.3.2018 EXT.r2(B) ALONG WITH I.A.NO.718/2018 IN O.S.NO.150/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHAVAKKAD