Kerala High Court
Sasikala K.K vs Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 29 February, 2012
Bench: K.M.Joseph, K.Harilal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2012/10TH SRAVANA 1934
WP(C).No. 15827 of 2012 (C)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
SASIKALA K.K, W/O. BABU. K.N.,
AGED 47 YEARS, KURUPPAMVALATH HOUSE,
KOTTAPPURAM POST, KODUNGALLUR - 680 667.
BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH.
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
IRINJALAKUDA-680 594.
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KODUNGALLUR-680 664.
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION,
KODUNGALLUR-680 664.
4. CHANDRAMGADHAN,
S/O. PARAYIL BHASKARAN, PARAYIL HOUSE,
METHALA VILLAGE AND DESOM, KODUNGALLUR-680 667.
R1 TO R3 BY SRI.P. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, STATE ATTORNEY.
SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.R. SYAM KUMAR.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 15827 of 2012 (C)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.S. NO. 41/2007
DATED 29/02/2012.
EXHIBIT-P2- TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NUMBER 4/12 ISSUED
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE STATE POLICE CHIEF.
EXHIBIT-P3- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
K.M.JOSEPH & K. HARILAL, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.15827 of 2012
-----------------------------------------
Dated, this the Ist day of August, 2012
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court complaining of harassment by the police by interfering in the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The trial Court found in favour of the petitioner. But, the said verdict was overturned in appeal. Petitioner intends to prefer second appeal. In the mean time, it is alleged that on a complaint from the 4th respondent the 2nd respondent Circle Inspector of Police summoned the petitioner to his office and is interfering in the civil dispute.
2. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that, on a complaint filed by the 4th respondent the petitioner and the 4th respondent were called. He would submit that police will not interfere in the civil dispute. We record the said submission and close the Writ Petition (Civil).
(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE.
( K. HARILAL) JUDGE.
MS