Kerala High Court
Amina Haris vs The City Police Commissioner 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. 5011 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
AMINA HARIS
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O HARIS, 'HARIS MANZIL', PADINJATTEKARA, THEVALAKKARA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690524
BY ADVS.
K.SIJU
S.ABHILASH
ANJANA KANNATH
MARIYA JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER
KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001
2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
KARUNAGAPPALLY SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICE OF POLICE,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690518
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN -
691590
4 ANEESH
S/O JALALUDEEN, NAZRIN MANZIL, PADINJATTEKARA, THEVALAKKARA
P.O, KOLLAM,, PIN - 690524
5 RIZA
W/O ANEESH, NAZRIN MANZIL, PADINJATTEKARA, THEVALAKKARA P.O,
KOLLAM, PIN - 690524
6 RASHEEDA
W/O JALALUDEEN, NAZRIN MANZIL, PADINJATTEKARA, THEVALAKKARA
P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 690524
BY ADVS.
AJAYA KUMAR. G
FATHIMA MAJEED(K/819/2015)
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. 5011 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
What presents amidst the facts of this case are disputes
between the petitioner on one hand and the 6 th respondent - her
mother-in-law, on the other. The petitioner says that the 6 th
respondent, along with respondents 4 and 5 - who are her brother-
in-law and sister-in-law respectively, assaulted her and her son;
and that she has preferred various complaints before the 1 st
respondent, but to no avail. She says that, therefore, she has been
constrained to approach this Court since, without police protection,
the party respondents will not allow her and her son to live in their
own house.
2. Smt.Anjana Kannath - learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the actions of respondents 4 to 6 are
confutative and that even though they have been attacking her
client and her son, no crime has been registered by the Police, in
spite of her having made several such requests. She says that, this
inaction of the police is malicious and therefore, that she has been
constrained to approach this Court through this writ petition.
3. However, in response, Sri.Ajaya Kumar G. - learned
counsel for respondents 4 to 6, submitted that the facts as stated
by the petitioner are not true and that what really happened was
that the petitioner's husband - who is the son of the 5 th respondent,
WP(C) NO. 5011 OF 2024
requested her and his father to move into his own house, under the
guise of him renovating the ancestral home. He submitted that,
however, the husband of the 5th respondent died in the meanwhile
and that she began to be abused by the petitioner; thus forcing her
to leave her residence and shift along with respondents 4 and 5. He
added that, his clients' personal belongings are still in the house of
the petitioner and that she is not even allowing them to take it, for
which she intends to take necessary action.
4. Sri.P.M.Shameer - learned Government Pleader
submitted that, as correctly noticed by this Court, the disputes
between the parties are in the civil realm, into which the Police
cannot intervene one way or the other. He, however, added that
any attempt by either of the parties to take law into their own
hands, or to commit actions in violation of law against each other,
will be taken note of and necessary action completed without any
avoidable delay. He added that the complaints of the petitioner
have been looked into carefully and that if she has any further
grievance, she can approach the competent Authorities or invoke
her legal remedies as per law.
5. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without
doubt - as is admitted that, at present, the respondents 4 to 6 are
residing elsewhere and not in the house of the petitioner. The
WP(C) NO. 5011 OF 2024
petitioner and her son have their homestead in their own building;
and therefore, all she now requires is protection for them to do so.
6. As I have said above, the respondents, on the other
hand, say that it is they who have been attacked and threatened by
the petitioner and not the other way around.
7. Obviously, the police is enjoined to protect the lives
of both sides, but without entering into their disputes in any
manner.
Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and direct the 3 rd
respondent - Station House Officer, to ensure that the lives of the
petitioner and her son, as also that of the party respondents, are
adequately protected against any actions against each other; and
that they are not allowed to take law into their own hands, in any
manner whatsoever. Necessary vigil to maintain law and order will
also be maintained in future.
That being said, the right of the petitioner to invoke any
other remedy against the party respondents, either before the
competent officials or before the competent criminal Court, are left
open; for which purpose, all rival contentions are left undecided.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NO. 5011 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5011/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 3.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, THEVALAKKARA IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER DATED
3.11.2023 ISSUED FROM THE TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL,
KARUNAGAPPALLY
EXHIBIT P2(A) THE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S SON
MUHAMMED HISHAM DATED 3.11.2023 ISSUED FROM THE TALUK HEAD
QUARTERS HOSPITAL, KARUNAGAPPALLY
EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FROM THE
PETITIONER DATED NIL
EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 3.2.2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 3.2.2024 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5(A) THE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 2.2.2024 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
