Kerala High Court
Sharafudeen vs State Of Kerala on 12 June, 2019
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1941
WP(C).No. 39709 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
SHARAFUDEEN, AGED 41 YEARS
SAFIYA MANZIL, SULAIMAN STREET,
VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA- 695008.
BY ADV. SRI.P.R.JAYASANKAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VALIYATHURA PALAYAM-AIRPORT ROAD,
SHANGHUMUGHAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695008.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
CV RAMANPILLAI ROAD, PANAVILA, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014.
4 SHAJEEB,SHAJEEB MANZIL, OPP. SBT,
PACHALLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695027.
5 JAHANGEER,NEAR PETROL STATION, PUTHANPURAYIL,
PARAVANKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695009.
6 ANEESH, NEAR PETROL STATION, PUTHANPURAYIL,
PARAVANKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695009.
R1 TO R3 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDHEEN, SR. GOVERNMENT
PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 39709 of 2018 2
JUDGMENT
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
The petitioner was before this Court alleging that respondents 4 to 6 are threatening the petitioner for reason of loss caused to them by the petitioner. The petitioner admits that he is engaged in share trading business and was an Intraday Trader operating through a Direct Internet Terminal [IBT]. It is also submitted that the respondents 4 to 6 were investors and had invested considerable amounts in shares. At the time of investment, respondents 4 to 6 were appraised of the possibility of loss being caused. When such loss was occasioned, respondents 4 to 6 are threatening the petitioner, is the specific contention raised by the petitioner. Notice to respondents 4 to 6 have been returned with the endorsement 'not known'.
2. The learned Government Pleader submits that on the complaint received from the petitioner, both parties were called to the Police Station and settlement entered into.
WP(C).No. 39709 of 2018 3
3. In such circumstances, we do not think anything survives in the writ petition. However, if any threat against the life and limb of the petitioner is resumed, the petitioner would be entitled to approach the jurisdictional Police.
The writ petition would stand disposed of with the above observation. Parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
Sd/-
V.G. ARUN, JUDGE.
sp/12/06/19 //True Copy// P.A. To Judge WP(C).No. 39709 of 2018 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF PETITIONER WITH ICICI BANK DATED 30.09.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM DATED 30.08.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF PETITION SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 17.11.2018.