Kerala High Court
Mrs.Anitha Jose vs District Police Chief (City) on 12 November, 2024
2024:KER:84304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024/21ST KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 29045 OF 2020
PETITIONERS:
1 MRS.ANITHA JOSE,
AGED 54 YEARS,
WIFE OF LATE MR.JOSE JOSEPH THOPPIL,
FORMS VILLA, SHAKTHAN NAGAR,
THRISSUR - 680 001.
2 MR.OUSEPH JOSE,
AGED 24 YEARS,
SON OF LATE MR.JOSE JOSEPH THOPPIL,
FORMS VILLA, SHAKTHAN NAGAR,
THRISSUR - 680 001.
BY ADVS.
JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL)
SRI.BIJO FRANCIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (CITY)
CIVIL LANES, THRISSUR - 680 003,
THRISSUR.
*2 ISHO, MANNUTHY POLICE STATION,
MANNUTHY - 680 651, THRISSUR.
*THE ADDRESS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU
CORRECTED AS 'INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
W.P.(C)No.29045 of 2020
2024:KER:84304
-2-
MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, MANNUTHY,
THRISSUR - 680 651' AS PER ORDER DATED 14.01.2021
IN WP(C) NO. 29045/2020.
**3 ADDL.R3.ERINJIL BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE UPADESAKA SAMITHI
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR.RAVEENDRAN V.P.,
SON OF PARAMESWARAN, VADAKKE VEETTIL HOUSE,
KOTTEPADAM, VELLANIKARA P.O.
THRISSUR - 680 654.
(**) ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
14.01.2021 IN IA NO. 01/2021 IN WP(C). 29045/2020.
BY ADV SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
R1 AND 2 - SRI.RAJEEV GEORGE,GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.29045 of 2020
2024:KER:84304
-3-
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 12th day of November, 2024)
The writ petition is preferred alleging harassment by
the 2nd respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that, they are
owners of the property in which construction of a residential
building was started. In the meanwhile, 1 st petitioner lost her
husband and the property was in an abandoned condition,
and when a strangers occupied the place, the petitioners
approached the 2nd respondent to remove the person from
occupation of the building, and he was removed.
3. When the petitioners were about to clear the
vegetation on the property, some persons under the address
of additional respondent No.3 interfered with the said activity
and informed that the said property is part of the Devaswom
and they raised a complaint against the petitioners before the
police.
4. The petitioners also preferred a complaint
against the 3rd respondent and other persons under them. By
2024:KER:84304
summoning the petitioners, the 2 nd respondent is trying to
harass them. This was the circumstance in which the writ
petition was preferred.
5. Today, when the matter is taken up for
consideration, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that already there is an order by the District
Police Chief not to interfere in the civil dispute involved in
this case and the 2nd respondent was also transferred.
6. Under such circumstances, no further orders
are required. However, in case of any further occurrence of
incidents, I deem it appropriate to order that if it is necessary
to summon the petitioners, that shall be in compliance with
Section 63 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and also under
Section 35 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita
Act, 2023.
Accordingly, the writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
ADS
2024:KER:84304
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29045/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED 1285/2008 DATED
18.03.2008.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED 1249/2008 DATED
15.03.2008.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED
03.05.2011.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT
PETITION(C) 8352/2012 DATED 23.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
16.12.2020.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
16.12.2020 CONCERNING PROPERTIES COMPRISED
IN SURVEY 67/1.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 16.12.2020
CONCERNING PROPERTIES COMPRISED IN SURVEY
65, 66 AND 67/1.
