Kerala High Court
Sanjay Varghese vs Station House Officer on 20 June, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 6932 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SANJAY VARGHESE
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O V.P.THOMAS,
MARY VILLA, WEST OTHERA P.O, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689551
BY ADVS.
T.P.PRADEEP
P.K.SATHEES KUMAR
R.K.PRASANTH
MINIKUMARY M.V.
JIJO JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689101
2 TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, REVENUE TOWER, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689101
3 PRIYA RATHEESH
W/O RATHEESH, MAMBARAMPIL HOUSE,
EAST OTHERA P.O, THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689546
4 RATHEESH
MAMBARAMPIL HOUSE, EAST OTHERA P.O, THIRUVALLA
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689546
BY ADVS.
MANU RAMACHANDRAN
M.KIRANLAL(K/963/2009)
T.S.SARATH(K/257/2012)
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)(K/78/2000)
SAMEER M NAIR(K/000481/2017)
SAILAKSHMI MENON(K/1518/2021)
JOTHISHA K.A.(K/123/2022)
SHIFANA M.(K/000936/2023)
SMT.REKHA C.NAIR, SR.GP
W.P.(C).No. 6932 of 2024
:2:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No. 6932 of 2024
:3:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that he is an entrepreneur and also a
public-spirited citizen, being the vice president of the "Othera
Janakeeya Vikasana Samithy". He alleges that the 4 th
respondent had trespassed into a "puramboke" area and that
the afore Samithy under him made Ext.P1 complaint, which has
infuriated him; and that he is, therefore, acting in collaboration
with certain other persons, who owe allegiance to a powerful
political party, to threaten and intimidate him, with the specific
intent of making him withdraw the said complaint. He says that
the 3rd respondent is the wife of the 4 th respondent and that she
is also involved in making threatening calls to him, which forced
him to prefer Exts.P3 and P4 complaints before the 1 st
respondent, but that no action has been taken thereon; thus
constraining him to approach this Court through this writ
petition.
2. In response to the afore submissions of
Sri.T.P.Pradeep - learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Manu
Ramachandran - learned counsel appearing for respondents 3
and 4, submitted that the facts are not as stated by the
petitioner at all, but that, it is his clients, who are facing threats
and intimidation from the petitioner. He added that the
petitioner made very disparaging remarks against his clients,
particularly the 3rd respondent, to other people, thus with an
intend to outrage her modesty, and that they intend to take
necessary action against him as per law. He added that his
clients have also filed complaints against the petitioner, which
has now been taken into cognizance by the police, and that this
writ petition has been filed only as a counter-blast to pre-empt
the investigation into it. He thus prayed that this writ petition be
dismissed.
3. Smt.Rekha C.Nair - learned Senior Government
Pleader, affirmed that both sides have filed complaints against
each other and that the police are investigating the same. She
added that the specific complaint of the petitioner, as reflected
in Exts.P3 and P4, that there are threatening calls made to him
from certain phone numbers, is also being enquired into; and
that they are ensuring that the lives of the parties are
adequately protected, without anyone being allowed to take law
into their own hands. She concluded saying that the police are
maintaining law and order and will continue to ensure that the
petitioner, the party respondents, or their men do not commit
any act which is in violation of peace or law.
4. When I examine the allegations of the parties against
each other, it is evident that, on one hand, the petitioner alleges
that the party respondents and their men are acting against him
because he filed a complaint against the 4th respondent; while,
the party respondents have a contrary case, that the petitioner
is denigrating them by making frivolous complaints and creating
baseless rumors. Obviously, it is for the police to look into all
these aspects, particularly because the disputes between the
parties cannot degenerate into a law and order problem.
In the afore perspective, I allow this writ petition and
direct the 1st respondent - Station House Officer, to ensure that
the lives of the petitioner, as also that of the party respondents,
are adequately and effectively protected against each other and
that none of them, or their men, are allowed to take law into
their own hands, or to commit any action which is in violation of
law. The police will ensure that the internecine disputes
between the parties do not degenerate into a problem for the
locality and the other residents and that a vigil is maintained on
the activities of both sides, to ensure that they remain within the
limits of decency and the parameters of law.
As far as the parties are concerned, their remedies against
each other, as available to them in law, as also their contentions
are fully left open; however, on condition that they do so without
resorting to violence, or such other deleterious conduct.
I reiteratingly clarify that I have not entered into the
merits of any of the rival contentions and that they are all left
undecided for the afore purpose.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
anm
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6932/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
31.01.2024 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
10.10.2023 BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ERAVIPEROOR
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
29.01.2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT WITH RECEIPT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
03.02.2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT WITH RECEIPT
