A Thajudeen vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 9189 Ker

Kerala High Court

A Thajudeen vs State Of Kerala on 3 April, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 8333 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

          A THAJUDEEN
          AGED 70 YEARS
          S/O ABDUL, VELISHERI HOUSE, ANCHAL PO,
          KOLLAM, PIN - 691306
          BY ADVS.
          S.MUMTAZ
          ALISHA ASLAM
          AMINA RUBY FAIZAL


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
    2     THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
          STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
    3     THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
          DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, VHJW+7VM, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM,
          KERALA., PIN - 691001
    4     STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          ANCHAL POLICE STATION MARKET, JUNCTION, OPPOSITE
          ANCHAL PRIVATE BUS STAND, ANCHAL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691306
    5     K. SAIJUKUMAR
          AGED 50 YEARS
          S/O KUMARAN, CHITHIRA AROOR, ANCHAL, KOLLAM,
          PIN - 691306
          BY ADVS.
          A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
          ASWATHY KRISHNAN(K/000603/2017)

          SRI PM SHAMEER-GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 8333 OF 2024               2

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner concedes that he had taken certain amounts from

the 5th respondent as a loan, but asserts that he has repaid substantial

portion thereof. He says that the 5th respondent is still demanding larger

amounts and is threatening and intimidating him for such purpose and

therefore, that he has been constrained to approach the 4 th respondent -

Station House Officer through Exts.P2 and P3 complaints seeking

protection. He alleges that, however, in spite of this no action has been

taken by the 4th respondent thus constraining him to approach this

Court through this writ petition.

2. In response to the afore submissions of Smt.S.Mumtaz - learned

counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government pleader -

Sri.P.M.Shameer, submitted that the complaint of the petitioner has

been taken note of very seriously and that he is being afforded all

protection as is necessary. He submitted that the Police are maintaining

law and order and is making sure that the 5th respondent does not

commit himself in any manner in violation of law.

3. I see from the file that even though service on the 5 th

respondent has been validly completed, he has chosen not to be present

in person or to be represented through counsel; inferentially guiding me

to the impression that he has nothing to offer in answer to the various

allegations made by the petitioner in this writ petition.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct the

4th respondent to ensure that the life of the petitioner is protected

adequately and effectively from every threat, including from the 5th

respondent.

I, however, clarify that the internecine disputes between the

parties, if any, have not been considered by this Court and are left

undecided.

'To be spoken to' order dated 09.04.2024

This matter has been listed today to be spoken to at the request of

Sri.Navaneeth Krishnan. He submitted that, he is, in fact, engaged on

behalf of the 5th respondent; adding that he had not received

instructions from his client at the time when the judgment was delivered

and that it is, therefore, that he could not be present. He then contented

that the allegations against his client are completely baseless and he is

not even residing in the neighbourhood, much less have caused any

nuisance or intimidation to the petitioner. He further submitted that

there are various other transactions and proceedings pending between

the parties and these have been suppressed by the petitioner.

I do not propose to speak on the afore on its merits because, as is

evident from the judgment, I have only directed the Police to protect the

life of the petitioner and nothing else. Obviously, every remedy to the 5th

respondent, as may be available to him in law, is fully left open; and I

clarify that this judgment cannot be used by either of the parties for any

collateral purpose, including in any alternative forum or proceedings.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/4.4

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8333/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P 1 TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPTS MADE BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P 2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT 254L/COMP/PTN/20-QR DATED 28/05/2020 Exhibit P 3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18/08/2023