Kerala High Court
Honey vs Director General Of Police on 17 October, 2011
Author: K.M.Joseph
Bench: K.M.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/7TH KARTHIKA 1934
WP(C).No. 24765 of 2012 (U)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. HONEY
S/O. JAYACHANDRADAS PANICKER, RAMAKRISHNA SADANAM
MUTTAPPALAM, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2. JAYACHANDRADAS PANICKER
S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, RAMAKRISHNA SADANAM, MUTTAPPALAM
CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ATTINGAL-695 101.
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
5. ARUN
S/O. VIJAYAN, CHITHRAM, MUTTAPPALAM
CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 014.
6. LAIJU
JOLLY NIVAS, MUTTAPPALAM, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 014.
7. AJAYAN
S/O. RAMACHANDRAKURUP, CHITHRAM, MUTTAPPALAM
CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 014.
8. SASIDHARAN
S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, VAZHAVILA HOUSE, MUTTAPPALAM
CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 014.
WPC 24765/12
9. VIJAYAN
S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, CHITHRAM, MUTTAPPALAM
CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 014.
10. PRIJI
S/O. SUKUMARAN, JOLLY NIVAS, MUTTAPPALAM
CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 014.
11. SHAN
S/O. SASIDHARAN, VAZHAVILA HOUSE, MUTTAPPALAM
CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 014.
R1 TO R4 BY STATE ATTORNEY MR.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN
GOVT. PLEADER MR.SHYAM KUMAR
R7 TO R10 BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-
10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 24765/12
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXTS.:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY SUNIL BEFORE THE FIFTH
RESPONDENT DATED 17.10.2011.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC
NO.28151/2011 DATED 24.10.2011.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.630/2012 OF VARKALA POLICE
STATION DATED 11.6.2012.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED 13.6.2012.
K.M.JOSEPH & K.HARILAL, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.24765 of 2012
---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2012 Judgment Joseph, J.
Petitioners have approached this court seeking the following relief:
"Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding respondents 3 and 4 to afford sufficient and meaningful police protection to the life of the petitioners from respondents 5 to 11 and their henchmen and associates."
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:
Respondents 5 to 11 are relatives. One Sunil who is a close relative of the petitioners eloped with the daughter of the 5th respondent secretly and they married without the consent of their parents. Respondents 5 to 11 are under the impression that it is at the instance of the petitioners, Sunil eloped with the daughter of the 5th respondent and on that reason respondents 5 to 11 are in inimical term with the petitioners. Petitioners got reliable WPC 24765/12 2 information that respondents 5 to 11 are planning to attack petitioners and their family members whenever opportunity arises to wreck vengeance against them. On 11.10.2011 while the 1st petitioner was travelling with Sunil, respondents 8 and 9 restrained them and brutally manhandled them and they were admitted in SSN Mission Hospital, Varkala. Though this fact was intimated to the police, no case was registered against respondents 8 and 9. Thereafter, Sunil filed W.P.C.No.28151/2011 before this court seeking for a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to afford police protection to his life from respondents 8 to 11 and their henchmen and in that writ petition this court issued direction to the third respondent herein to hold a thorough enquiry and to provide protection to the petitioner therein if the enquiry reveals that there exists any threat to life and limb from the party respondents. Pursuant to the above direction, the third respondent summoned respondents 8 to 10 before him and warned them that he will take coercive steps if they repeat their illegal activities again. The petitioners were not arrayed as parties in the above writ petition. On 3.6.2012 respondents 5 to 7 along with some others attacked the 1st WPC 24765/12 3 petitioner and inflicted serious injury. On the basis of the complaint filed by the 1st petitioner, police has registered a crime against respondents 5 to 7 and other 16 identifiable persons under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 452, 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 27 of the Arms Act. Respondents 5 to 11 infuriated due to the complaint submitted by the petitioners and they got reliable information that respondents 5 to 11 are planning to attack petitioners. Respondents 5 to 11 are very influential persons in the locality. As the threat and harassment on the part of respondents 5 to 11 has become intolerable, petitioners submitted a complaint before the 4th respondent with copy to respondents 1 to 3 seeking police protection for their life and property. Petitioners apprehend that no action will be taken in the said complaint by the police due to the influence of respondents 5 to 11.
3. We heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 11 and the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4.
4. Learned counsel for respondents 5 to 11 seeks time to file counter affidavit. He would also submit that respondents 5 to WPC 24765/12 4 11 have no intention to cause any threat to the lives of the petitioners. We record the above submission. In case the petitioners complain before the 4th respondent of any threat to the lives of the petitioners from respondents 5 to 11, the 4th respondent will look into it and if found genuine will provide protection to the lives of the petitioners as against respondents 5 to 11. We make it clear that if the matter comes up before any civil court/criminal court, that court will be free to decide the case untrammelled by any observations contained in this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
K.HARILAL, JUDGE.
srd WPC 24765/12 5 WPC 24765/12 6