Kerala High Court
Rajesh Kumar P.A vs Stateof Kerala on 8 August, 2011
Author: K.T.Sankaran
Bench: K.T.Sankaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAYOF SEPTEMBER 2016/6TH ASWINA, 1938
WP(C).No. 19303 of 2016 (K)
PETITIONERS:
1. RAJESH KUMAR P.A., AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O.ASOKAN, POOTHOLIL HOUSE,
MUTHUNGHAL KOONANJILICKAL ROAD,
CHITTETHUKARA, KAKKANAD-682 030.
2. ANWAR T.A., AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O.ALIKUNJU,THAMARASSERI HOUSE,
CHERANELLUR P.O., KOCHI-682 034.
BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
SRI.BENOJ C. AUGUSTIN
SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN
SRI.V.M.HASSAN
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATEOF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CHERANELLUR POLICE STATION,
CHERANELLUR-682 034.
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION,
THRIKKAKARA - 682 028.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
REVENUE TOWER, KOCHI CITY - 682 011.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
6. SURESH RAM, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.ASOKAN,
POOTHOLIL HOUSE, EDAPPALLY NORTH,
AMRITHA P.O., KOCHI-682 026.
7. PRAKASHINI K.P., AGED 69 YEARS, W/O.ASOKAN,
POOTHOLIL HOUSE, EDAPPALLY NORTH,
AMRITHA P.O., KOCHI-682 026.
R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN
R6 & 7 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.PRADEEP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.9.2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 19303 of 2016 (K)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF OS NO.835/2011 FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATMENT IN OS NO.835/2011 OF
PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 8-8-2011 BEFORE THE
CHERANELLUR POLICE STATION SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 16-10-2015 LODGED
BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE VANITHA POLICE,
ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF OS NO.274/2015 FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENT PREPARED AND
PUBLISHED AND CIRCULATED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED
17-1-2016.
EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 19-1-2016 FILED BY THE
1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION.
EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF MC 10/2016 FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
KUNNUMPURAM.
EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31-3-2016 IN CMP NO.127/2016
OF THE JFCM IX, KUNNUMPURAM.
EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE FATHER OF THE 2ND
PETITIONER BEFORE CHERANELLUR POLICE STATION DATED
5.5.2015.
EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 30-5-2016 BEFORE THE
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE 6TH AND
7TH RESPONDENTS.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
AHZ/
K.T.SANKARAN &
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.19303 of 2016(K)
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of September, 2016
JUDGMENT
K.T.Sankaran, J.
On going through the averments in the Writ Petition and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that the Writ Petition is clearly misconceived.
2. The first petitioner and the sixth respondent are brothers. The seventh respondent is their mother. No relief is asked for against the seventh respondent. It is not known why the seventh respondent is made a party. On all the postings the aged mother (seventh respondent) is appearing before Court in spite of the fact that she has engaged a counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the Court talks to the seventh respondent the truth will come out and the matters can be appropriately decided. The matter was referred for mediation and even before the Mediation Centre the disputes were not settled. We are not inclined to accept the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that W.P.(C) No.19303 of 2016(K) :: 2 ::
we may interact with the seventh respondent. We do not propose to increase the scope of the disputes and the scope of the present Writ Petition.
3. There are several properties belonging to Ashokan, the late father of the first petitioner and the sixth respondent as well as the husband of the seventh respondent. Disputes arose between the first petitioner and the sixth respondent. Civil litigations are pending between them. A property at Vallarpadam was acquired for the purpose of Transship Terminal. About Rupees sixty lakhs was received as compensation. According to the petitioners, the sixth respondent misappropriated the whole amount. The learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 submitted that Rupees fifty lakhs is due from the first petitioner to the seventh respondent. According to respondents 6 and 7, the first petitioner cheated the mother as well as his brother. Even now, disputes are pending decision before the civil court. Occasionally, petitions are being filed by either side before the police. In this background, we have to see the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition, which are the following:
"i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents 2 to 5 to W.P.(C) No.19303 of 2016(K) :: 3 ::
provide adequate police protection to the lives of petitioners and their families from the illegal acts and threats of 6th respondent and his men; and
ii) grant such other appropriate reliefs to the petitioner as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. First of all, we express our displeasure that the petitioners have impleaded the seventh respondent who is quite an unnecessary party to the dispute with respect to the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition. The disputes between the first petitioner and the sixth respondent are pending before various forums. We do not find any ground to grant police protection as prayed for. The disputes between the petitioner and the sixth respondent involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
K. T. Sankaran Judge K. Abraham Mathew Judge ahz/