Smt. Anitha vs The Director General Of Police
2024 Latest Caselaw 10368 Ker

Kerala High Court

Smt. Anitha vs The Director General Of Police on 11 April, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 2167 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:

    1     SMT. ANITHA
          AGED 45 YEARS
          W/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, RESDING AT GOKUL NIVAS,
          MANJADITHARA MURI, BHARANIKAKUVU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM,
          ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690503
    2     GOKUL G.
          AGED 28 YEARS
          S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, RESDING AT GOKUL NIVAS,
          MANJADITHARA MURI, BHARANIKAVU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM,
          ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690503
    3     RAHUL G
          AGED 26 YEARS
          S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, RESDING AT GOKUL NIVAS,
          MANJADITHARA MURI, BHARANIKAVU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM,
          ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690503
          BY ADVS.
          J.JULIAN XAVIER
          FIROZ K.ROBIN
          ROY JOSEPH
          ANIES MATHEW
          NIRMAL KURIEN EAPEN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
          POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
    2     THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
          CCSB ROAD, MUKHAM PURAYIDOM, CIVIL STATION WARD,
          ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688012
    3     STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          KURATHIKADU, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690107
    4     SMT. SUSEELA
          W/O. SOMAN, SOMA BHAVANAM VEETTIL, MANJADITHARA MURI,
          BHARANIKAVU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA,
          PIN - 690503
    5     SMT. SINDHU
          D/O. SUSEELA, SOMA BHAVANAM VEETTIL, MANJADITHARA
          MURI, BHARANIKAVU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA,
          PIN - 690503
 WP(C) NO. 2167 OF 2024           2

    6     SMT. SREEDEVI
          W/O. KRISHNAN, KRISHNALAL BHAVANAM, MANJADITHARA MURI,
          BHARANIKAVU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA,
          PIN - 690503
    7     UNNIKRISHNAN
          SOMA BHAVANAM VEETTIL, MANJADITHARA MURI, BHARANIKKAVU
          VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690503
    8     KRISHNA RAJ
          KRISHNALAL BHAVANAM, MANJADITHARA MURI, BHARANIKAVU
          VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690503
    9     KRISHNALAL
          BHARANIKAVU, KURATHIKADU, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA,
          PIN - 690503
    10    SRI. RAJESH
          S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, RAJESHBHAVANAM, MANJADITHARA MURI,
          BHARANIKAVU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA,
          PIN - 690503
    11    SRI. RAMACHANDRAN
          S/O. PAPPU, RAJESHBHAVANAM, MANJADITHARA MURI,
          BHARANIKAVU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA,
          PIN - 690503
          BY ADVS.
          R.REJI
          M.V.THAMBAN(K/364/1986)
          THARA THAMBAN(K/497/2001)
          B.BIPIN(K/297/2007)
          ARUN BOSE(K/140/2013)
          JEENA A.V.(K/1146/2006)
          THOMAS THOMAS(K/1181/2023)

          SRI.P.M.SHAMEER, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 2167 OF 2024               3

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioners say that there are certain disputes they have with

respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and that they are now threatening and

intimidating them for such reason; thus constraining them to have

sought protection from the Police which has not been, however, acceded

to. They say that, therefore, they have been forced to approach this

Court seeking that the Police be directed to afford necessary and

adequate protection to them and their properties from the threats

meted to them by respondents 4 to 6 and their men, namely respondents

7 to 11.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner - Sri.J.Julian Xavier,

further explained that the first petitioner is the mother of petitioners 2

and 3 and that the latter are in search of employment after their

graduation and post graduation respectively. He says that, as stated

above, petitioner No.1 was attacked by respondents 10 and 11, at the

instigation of respondents 4 to 9 on 31.12.2023; and that she was

admitted to the Taluk Hospital, Kayamkulam, which matter was

reported to the Police through the Hospital. He submitted that in spite

of this no action has been taken by the Police though the State Human

Rights Commission had issued a direction to such effect which also

remains presently unheeded to. He thus reiteratingly prayed that the

reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted.

3. Sri.R.Reji - learned counsel appearing for respondents 10 and

11, refuted the afore assertions, saying that there are no subsisting

disputes between the parties and that his clients are not even

neighbours of the petitioners. He added that all the assertions above

have been made confutatively and questionably, in order to prejudice his

clients; and reasserted that they have, at no point of time, ever caused

any threat or intimidation, much less attack, on them in any manner. He

submitted that apart from the base allegations, that his clients had

attacked the petitioners, not even a document has been produced on

record to establish the same. He thus prayed that this writ petition be

dismissed.

4. Sri.P.M.Shameer - learned Government Pleader, however,

affirmed that two FIRs have been registered at the instance of the

petitioners against the party respondents and that investigation to the

same is going on. He, however, pointed out that, as is evident from

Ext.P2, the petitioners had reported that it was because the petitioners

objected to the drinking habits of respondents 7 to 9, that they had

abused the 1st among them and had trespassed into her property; but

that all these have been properly investigated into and necessary

protection is also being afforded to the petitioners. He concluded saying

that, a Crime has been registered against the party respondents and

Charge Sheet filed; and hence that the petitioners require to harbour

their no further apprehension as of now.

5. The endorsements on file indicate that summons has been

validly completed on all the party respondents. However, except

respondents 10 and 11, the others have refused to appear in person, or

to be even represented through counsel; thus constraining me to

dispose of this writ petition in their absence.

6. The afore narrative of the rival submissions render it

indubitable that there appears to be some disputes between the parties,

which may either be in the civil realm or spilling over to criminal

imputations. These are not matters into which this Court can enter into

or speak conclusively, particularly while acting under the "Police

Protection" jurisdiction, which is more so for the reason that the Police

appear to be investigating the same or have filed Charge Sheet, as the

case may be.

7. As far as this Court is concerned, it is enjoined only to ensure

that the lives and properties of the parties are sufficiently protected

against each other and their disputes do not degenerate into law and

order issues.

8. Since the learned Government Pleader undertakes that the

afore will be done, I see no reason to keep this writ petition pending on

the files of this Court any further.

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed; with a consequential

direction to the 3rd respondent - Station House Officer to ensure, on a

continuous basis, that the lives of the petitioners, as also that the party

respondents, are protected against threats from each other; and that

neither of them are allowed to take law into their own hands, or to

commit any action which is in violation of law.

As far as the investigation of the Crimes are concerned, the Police

are obligated to do so and to complete it, if they have not done so; for

which the afore directions will not be a hamper or fetter.

It also goes without saying that the Police must ensure that law

and order is always maintained and that any violation of the afore

directions are dealt with to the fullest warrant of law; and I further

order the 2nd respondent to ensure that these directions are implicitly

complied with.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/16.4

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2167/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S NO.

281/2020 DATED 08.01.2021 ALONG WITH DECREE Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR NO. 245/2021 OF THE KURATHIKADU POLICE STATION Exhibit P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8-9-2021 IN HRMP NO. 2274/11/1/2021ALP ISSUED BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Exhibit P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR RECEIVING THE COMPLAINT ON 8-5-2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT POLICE STATION Exhibit P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 16-5-2023 IN THE SAME MONTH ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT POLICE STATION Exhibit P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT/PETITION DATED 28-11-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE DISCHARGE REFERENCE CARD DATED 4-1-2024 ISSUED FROM THE TALUK, HOSPITAL, KAYAMKULAM