Kerala High Court
Mathew vs District Police Chief on 20 June, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1939
WP(C).No. 36973 of 2017 V
-------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
MATHEW
S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHITTAPPANATTU
HOUSE, ALINCHUVADU, CHERUTHONI, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., IDUKKI
DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.BABY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THODUPUZHA
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685584.
2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685584.
3. INSPECTOR OF POLICE
IDUKKI POLICE STATION-685602.
4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
IDUKKI POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685602.
5. PARTHASARATHI
S/O.SIVADASAN, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT UDAYANIKUTTI
HOUSE, CHERUTHONI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685555.
R1-R4 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P P THAJUDDIN
R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 36973 of 2017 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-06-2011 IN
WP(C)NO.23063/2011.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DATED
2-5-2002.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED AT THE
INSTANCE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16-08-2017
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 19.09.2007 OM ST 1392/04
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE RE(a) RUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 23.11.07
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
jma
K. Vinod Chandran & Ashok Menon, JJ
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P(C) No.36973 of 2017 V
----------------- -----------
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
K. Vinod Chandran, J The petitioner is before this Court claiming police protection alleging threat and intimidation by the 5 th respondent. It is the submission of the petitioner that there is a private burial ground in the locality carried on against the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules 1998. The 5 th respondent is a member of the community who carries on the burial ground, who developed animosity towards the petitioner for reason of the petitioner's crusade against the burial ground. The petitioner also points to Ext.P1 judgment of this Court in which he was one of the petitioners and this Court had directed the burial ground to be closed down by WPC.No. 36973/2017 :2: the local authority and the district administration. Especially after Ext.P1 judgment, the animosity towards the petitioner increased and the 5th respondent had been raising various threats against the life of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner also claims that there were a number of criminal complaints against the 5 th respondent and his sister. Only to facilitate the sister's employment, the same were settled, but later, the sister joined the Police force and now the police at the instigation of the 5 th respondent is acting against the petitioner. The 5 th respondent submits that the criminal cases filed were cooked up and were only to prevent the 5 th respondent's sisters entry into government service. These cases were filed only when the 5th respondent's sister's name appeared in the list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission. It is also stated that the 5 th respondent had paid money to the petitioner to settle these cases, which is WPC.No. 36973/2017 :3: evidenced from Ext.P2 settlement.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that there were many cases filed against the petitioner also. The petitioner however, asserts that he was acquitted in all those cases and one in which he was convicted, it was overturned in appeal. The learned Government Pleader however, points out that at least in three cases, the acquittal was by reason of compounding of the offense.
4. Allegations and counter allegations are raised by the parties. We see that the settlement of cases referred to was in the year 2000. The judgment insofar as the burial ground has also become final. The 5 th respondent submits that he has not levelled any threat against the petitioner nor does he intend so to do. We also see that the petitioner had filed a complaint against a Sub Inspector of Police, in which there was a conviction entered at Ext.P5. In any event, if any complaint is made by the WPC.No. 36973/2017 :4: petitioner, of a cognizible offense, then the police shall investigate the same and take appropriate action to avert any danger to the petitioners life and limb.
With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge Sd/-
Ashok Menon, Judge jma //True Copy// P.A. To Judge