Kerala High Court
Mari S vs The 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. 19678 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MARI S., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O SIVALINGAM, 319/2,
GANDHIPURAM, MELNIMMIYAMBATTU, VANIYAMBADI,
NIMMIYAMBATTU, VELLORE,TAMILNADU, PIN - 635752
BY ADVS.
NIKITA NAIR C.S.
JOSEPH GEORGE
T.G.SUNIL (PERUMBAVOOR)
SYAM K.P.
ASHISH GOPAL K.G
S.S.BIMAL
ALIF K.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689662
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
9HJF+42H, KULAKKADU ROAD, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN - 689101
3 MUHAMMED IQBAL, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O H.ABDUL VAHAB,IQBAL MANZIL,KARAMMOODU,KUNDAYAM P.O,
PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 689695
BY ADVS.
ANSU VARGHESE
K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM)(K/143/2010)
KRISHNANUNNI G.B.(K/3585/2022)
SMT.REKHA C.NAIR - SR.GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 19678 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that he is the owner of an entreprise
which operates and installs "thrilling rides" and that he has
entered into Ext.P1 agreement with the third respondent with
respect to such. He says that, however, the third respondent
has violated the agreement without any tenable cause and
that when he asked him about the same, it infuriated him to
such a level, that he has meted out threats and intimidation to
him, even of doing him away with. He says that he and his
employees are, therefore, now living in constant fear of the
third respondent and his men; and hence that he preferred
Ext.P2 complaint before the first respondent seeking
protection, which has not been acceded to. He, therefore,
says that he has been left without any other option, but to
approach this Court through this writ petition.
2. Pertinently, in response to the afore submissions of
Smt.Nikita Nair C.S. - learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri.Ansu Varghese - learned counsel for the third respondent,
submitted that the afore allegations are wholly untrue and
that his client has committed no action which is in violation of
law, nor has he meted out any threat or intimidation to the
petitioner. He added that his client has no reason to do so
WP(C) NO. 19678 OF 2024
because, the disputes between the parties are in the
contractual realm; for which, he intends to take legal action.
He alleged that it is to scuttle such action and to pre-empt it,
that the petitioner has approached this Court through this
writ petition.
3. Smt.Rekha C.Nair - learned Senior Government
Pleader, confirmed that both sides have filed complaints
against each other and have sought police protection from one
another. She added that the Police are hence ensuring that
the lives of the parties are adequately protected, but that they
cannot intervene in the internecine disputes between them
because, they are based on Ext.P1 contract. She concluded
saying that the Police are maintaining law and order in the
area, without any of the parties being allowed to take law into
their own hands in any manner whatsoever. She thus prayed
that this writ petition be disposed of on such terms.
4. There can be little doubt that the duty of the Police is
to ensure that the lives and properties of the parties are
adequately protected, as in the case of any other citizen.
They must certainly ensure that law and order is maintained,
without any of the parties being allowed to violate it, since
this is a nation governed by the Rule of Law.
WP(C) NO. 19678 OF 2024
5. In the afore perspective, I allow this writ petition,
recording the afore submissions of the learned Government
Pleader; with a consequential direction to the first respondent
- Station House Officer, to ensure that the lives of the parties
are adequately protected against each other and that their
internecine disputes do not degenerate into a law and order
issue. The Police will maintain vigil to ensure that none of
the parties take law into their own hands, or commit any
action which is in violation of peace. If any incident is to be
reported to the first respondent - either through the
petitioner or otherwise - then all necessary action as per law
to the fullest warrant will be initiated and completed against
the culprits without any reservation.
I, however, clarify that I have not entered into the merits
of any of the rival contentions, including qua Ext.P1; and that
they are all left open for them to be impelled and pursued
before any competent Authority, however, without resorting
to violence, or such other deleterious conduct.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
WP(C) NO. 19678 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19678/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
9-11-2023
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
28/05/2024 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R3(a) The true copy of the request letter
dated 27.05.2024 submitted by the
Manager of AgriTec Green Technologies
and Consultancy Services to District
Collector, Kollam for permitting show in
the Ashraman Maidan
Exhibit R3(b) The receipt vide no.1810/24 issued from
the office of Collector, Kollam dated
27/05/2024 accepting Ext.R3(a)
application
Exhibit R3(c) The true copy of the request letter
submitted by the Manager of AgriTec
Green Technologies and Consultancy
Services to Attingal Municipality dated
18.05.2024
Exhibit R3(d) The true copy of the plaint which is
numbered as O.S No.211 of 2024 on the
files of the Munsiff Court, Punalur
Exhibit R3(e) The true copy of the O.P(Caveat) No.45
of 2024 before Hon'ble Sub Court, Kollam
