Kerala High Court
Saleena vs The District Superintendent Of Police, ... 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. 12434 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SALEENA, AGED 44 YEARS
W/O ABDUL JABBAR, CHEENIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, TANALUR,
K.PURAM P. O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676307
BY ADV C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM
MALAPPURAM P.O., PIN - 676505
2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
TANUR POLICE STATION,TANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676307
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
TANUR POLICE STATION,TANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676307
4 THE MANAGER
SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED,TIRUR BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR,
KUNNATHEDATH BUILDING, TIRUR-TANUR ROAD, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676107
SRI PM SHAMEER-GP;
SRI V P K PANICKER-R4
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. 12434 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that her son had availed of a vehicle loan
from the Sundaram Finance Limited, of which the fourth
respondent is the Manager and that he appears to have made
some default in its repayment. She asserts that she is not
responsible for it, but that the fourth respondent has now
threatened her and her family, thus causing infraction of peace;
constraining her to approach the first respondent through Ext.P3
complaint and seeking police protection. She says that, however,
no action has been taken by the said respondent and therefore,
that she has been constrained to approach this Court through this
writ petition.
2. However, in response to the afore submissions as made by
the learned counsel - Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, learned
standing counsel for the fourth respondent - Sri.V.P.K.Panicker,
submitted that the allegations and imputations in this writ
petition are wholly untrue and that his client has not committed
any conduct which is in violation of law. He explained that the
petitioner's son had availed of a vehicle loan, which is guaranteed
by her, and hence that her assertion that she is not involved in the
said transaction is also contrary to the truth. He, however, added
WP(C) NO. 12434 OF 2024
that the fourth respondent will not take any action which is
beyond the purview of law and that all recovery will be done as
per it and under the provisions of the applicable statutes.
3. Sri.P.M.Shameer - learned Government Pleader, made
submissions more or less affirming the afore assertions of
Sri.V.P.K.Panicker, saying that the police are ensuring that the
life of the petitioner is properly protected but that no incident has
been now detected from the hands of the fourth respondent, as
alleged.
4. Taking note of the afore submissions, I allow this writ
petition, without entering into the merits of any of the rival
submissions or contentions; but directing the third respondent to
ensure that the life of the petitioner is adequately protected from
any threat in future also.
I, however, clarify that the observations of this Court will not
hamper or trammel the rights of the fourth respondent in invoking
remedy for recovery of the loan; however, as long as it is done
peacefully and in terms of law.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
WP(C) NO. 12434 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12434/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED BY THE TANALUR VILLAGE OFFICER DATED
19.05.2023
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION DETAILS OF
VEHICLE NO. KL-55-AD-1402 ISSUED BY TIRUR
SRTO DATED 11.01.2021
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 21.03.2024
