Kerala High Court
Rahila P vs Superintendant Of Police on 5 April, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 6740 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
1 RAHILA P
AGED 50 YEARS
D/O.PARAPPURATH MOIDU HAJI (LATE), PARAPPURATH HOUSE,
THANALUR AMSOM, PAKARA DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676106
2 RAJULA
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O.MUHAMMED SALIH E.K., EDUVAMMAL KALAKAPPARA HOUSE,
PATHAIKKARA AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA DESOM, PATHAIKKARA P.O.
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679322
3 SAHALA P
AGED 33 YEARS
W/O. K.P. HASHIQ, KIZHAKKE PALLIKKAL HOUSE, MALAPPURAM
AMSOM, KEEZHUMURI DESOM, DOWNHILL P.O., ERANAD TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676519
BY ADVS.
U.K.DEVIDAS
S.K.SREELAKSHMY
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE
MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505
2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676106
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679513
4 SUHAIL
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.PARAPPURATH MOIDU HAJI (LATE), PARAPPURATH HOUSE,
THANALUR AMSOM, PAKARA DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676106
5 JUBAIRIYA
W/O. SUHAIL, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, THANALUR AMSOM, PAKARA DESOM,
TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676106
6 AZAD
S/O.ALIBAVA, ALANGATTIL HOUSE, THANALUR AMSOM, PAKARA
DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676106
WP(C) NO. 6740 OF 2024
2
7 FAIZAL
PAKARA DESOM, THANALUR AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676106
8 SADIQ
S/O. KOYAKUTTY, CHAKKIYATH HOUSE, THANALUR AMSOM, PAKARA
DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676106
BY ADVS.
NIRMAL V NAIR
J.R.PREM NAVAZ J.R
SUMEEN S.(K/000187/2012)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 6740 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, who are stated to be the siblings of the
fourth respondent, allege that the latter is obstructing them from
visiting their mother, who is residing with him, in the common
family residential house. They say that when they attempted to do
so, they were attacked viciously by the fourth respondent, his wife
- the fifth respondent and their relatives - respondents 6 to 8; and
that they were thus forced to seek medical assistance from the
'Almas Hospital', Kottakkal, who has issued Exts.P2 and P3
certificates indicating the nature of the injuries suffered by them.
2. The petitioners say that, they have thereupon,
preferred Ext.P4 complaint before the Circle Inspector of Police,
followed by Ext.P5 before the Superintendent of Police; but that
neither has action been taken on either of these, nor have they
been given any protection to see their mother again. They
resultantly, pray that the respondent No.1 be directed to take
necessary action of Ext.P5 and that the 3 rd respondent - Station
House Officer be ordered to grant them adequate and effective
protection to see their mother.
3. Pertinently, Sri.Nirmal V. - learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.4, submitted that the allegations
made against his client are wholly wrong and that he has never
WP(C) NO. 6740 OF 2024
obstructed the petitioners from seeing their mother. He added
that, these allegations have been made confutatively by the
petitioners; and concluded saying that, it is, in fact, they who had
created trouble when they visited the house of his client and
hence that they ought to be now warned not to do so.
4. Sri.Prem Navas, learned counsel appearing for
respondent 6 and 7, also affirmed that his clients have never
obstructed the petitioners, nor do they intent to do so; and that
the latter are welcome to see their mother anytime they want.
5. Sri.P.M.Shameer - the learned Government Pleader,
in response to the afore, submitted that the police are keeping a
vigil over the activities of the parties and that they will take
necessary action, as and when required. He submitted that
Ext.P5 has already seized the attention of the 1st respondent -
Superintendent of Police; and that necessary action will be taken
thereon, if, through enquiries, it is found that it is necessary.
6. That said, the submissions made on behalf of
respondents 4 to 7 make the position clear that they are not
obstructing the petitioners from seeing their mother, though they
seek that they be directed to do so in a peaceful manner.
7. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition
and direct respondent No.3 to afford necessary and adequate
WP(C) NO. 6740 OF 2024
protection to the petitioners, as also to the party respondents,
whenever the former visits their mother; thus ensuring that both
sides behave in a civil manner, without causing any breach of
peace and without committing any act, which is contrary to law.
Any complaint to be preferred by either of the parties
before the 3rd respondent in future, will be taken seriously and
necessary action taken thereon, to the fullest warrant of law,
without any reservation.
As far as the 1st respondent is concerned, he is directed to
consider Ext.P5 complaint of the petitioners and cause necessary
enquiries thereon; thus culminating in necessary action, without
any avoidable delay.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NO. 6740 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6740/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 26.07.2022 IN O.S.NO.
51/2022 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, TIRUR
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 04.05 .2023
ISSUED BY THE ALMAS HOSPITAL,KOTTAKKAL
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION DATED 09.05.2023 FROM THE
ALMAS HOSPITAL, KOTTAKKAL
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27.05.2023 SUBMITTED BY
THE SECOND PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT WITH RECEIPT DATED 27.01.2024
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT
