High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-03-18Disposed of with directions; writ petition disp...

Radha v. Sub Inspector of Police, Kasba Police Station, North Ernakulam and Siji Nirmal

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.28223 OF 2020(C)

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date: 2021-03-18
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of with directions: (i) If there is any threat to the life of the petitioner or her property from the second respondent, the petitioner shall move the first respondent with a request for police protection; (ii) On such a request, the first respondent shall act promptly and in accordance with statutory provisions and the law. The interim order directing protection remains in force and the court directs continued vigilance by the police within the framework of the Kerala Police Act.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions; writ petition disposed of by directing police protection on demand and prompt action by the first respondent under the statutory framework; interim order maintained until further action as required by events. R-1 to act without delay on protection requests.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Radha

Respondents

Sub Inspector of Police, Kasba Police Station, North Ernakulam
Siji Nirmal

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C. D. Johny
• Smt. V. J. Ruby

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Sunil Nath N.B
• Sri K.P. Arun

Case Synopsis & Summary

Radha, a 71-year-old senior citizen, files a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to obtain adequate police protection from threats allegedly posed by the second respondent, Siji Nirmal, who married her younger son. The petition asserts that the second respondent has advanced an unlawful claim to about 9.5 cents of land in Radha’s name within Elamkulam Village, and is subjecting her to fear and mental agony. An interim order was issued directing the first respondent to ensure that no physical harm occurs, and the order remains in force. The second respondent denies any intent to threaten the petitioner, explaining that she merely seeks lodging and has financial distress. The first respondent submitted a statement that, after preliminary enquiry, he advised the parties to pursue civil settlement in the court; the counter affidavit emphasizes peaceful settlement as the best approach. The court discusses the Kerala Police Act, specifically Sections 3 and 4, and cites Lord Denning's Due Process of Law and Supreme Court decisions in Manohar Lal Sharma and Ankush Maruti Shinde to illustrate the police’s duty to protect life, liberty and property and to perform investigations. The court concludes by directing that if a threat arises, the petitioner may approach the first respondent for protection, who must act promptly under the relevant provisions, thereby disposing of the petition with directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 226Kerala Police Act, 2011, Section 3Kerala Police Act, 2011, Section 4

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Due Process of Law (as described by Lord Denning)
Police must protect life, liberty and property (principle cited from Manohar Lal Sharma and reiterated in Ankush Maruti Shinde)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that she is a senior citizen living in her house who faces threats and pressure from the second respondent, who married the petitioner's younger son. She asserts the second respondent has asserted a claim to a portion of her land and is causing fear and mental agony, prompting Ext. P1 and this writ petition for police protection. She relies on Article 226 and the Kerala Police Act provisions to argue the state’s duty to protect life and property and to ensure peace. The interim order dated 17.12.2020 directing protection remains in force. She notes the ongoing Family Court maintenance proceedings and argues civil remedies should be explored with police protection as a safeguard where needed. She cites Manohar Lal Sharma and Ankush Maruti Shinde to stress the police obligation to protect life and to act promptly when danger arises.

Contentions of Respondents

The 2nd respondent asserts no intent to threaten the petitioner, seeking only lodging due to financial distress and asserting that there is no threat. The counter affidavit describes matrimonial disputes and ongoing Family Court proceedings, stating the 2nd respondent has no malafide intent toward Radha. The 1st respondent’s statement indicates preliminary enquiries and a recommendation to pursue civil settlement, arguing that police protection should not be used to resolve private disputes where civil remedies exist. The argument emphasizes that police actions must align with legal duties under the Police Act and Constitution, and that the presence of ongoing litigation requires careful balancing to avoid unnecessary police interference.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary	(2014) 2 SCC 532	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that police have a duty to protect life, liberty, and property and to perform investigations as part of upholding individual rights.
Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra	(2019) 15 SCC 470	Positive	Cited to reiterate the principle of police protection of citizens during disputes and the need for prompt protective action where necessary.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Radha v. Sub Inspector of Police, Kasba Police Station, North Ernakulam and Siji Nirmal and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.28223 OF 2020(C)** ## **PETITIONER:** **RADHA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS W/O.LATE V.K.KARAMCHAND,65/3998, VELUTHAMAN HOUSE,PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR.P.O, PIN-682017.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.D.JOHNY SMT.V.J.RUBY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KASBA POLICE STATION, NORTH ERNAKULAM-682018. 2 SIJI NIRMAL, AGED 47 YEARS D/O.JOHNY.P.P,PUTHENPEEDIKA HOUSE,NANDIKULAM,THRISSUR-680312. NOW RESIDING AT 104,INDIRA NAGAR, JUDGES AVENUE,ERNAKULAM, KALOOR-682017.** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SUNIL NATH N.B R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.ARUN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -2- WP(C).No.28223 OF 2020(C) ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is a senior citizen aged 71 years, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent to provide her adequate and effective police protection against threat from the side of the 2[nd] respondent. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is residing in her house situated in 9 cents of property in Elamkulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk. The petitioner's younger son married the 2[nd] respondent on 13.12.2018. At present, there are some matrimonial issues between the petitioner's son and the 2[nd] respondent. In the writ petition, it is alleged that the 2[nd] respondent has raised an unlawful claim over the property of the petitioner and she is causing threat to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 complaint dated 10.12.2020 before the 1[st] respondent seeking police protection and thereafter, moved this writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief. 2. On 17.12.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice before admission to the respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for -3- ## WP(C).No.28223 OF 2020(C) the 1[st] respondent. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to the 2[nd] respondent. This Court granted an interim order directing the 1[st] respondent to ensure that no physical harm is caused to the petitioner by the party respondent. The said interim order is still in force. 3. The 2[nd] respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that there is some matrimonial disputes between her and the younger son of the petitioner. The 2[nd] respondent has already filed a Maintenance Case before the Family Court, Ernakulam, which is pending consideration. The 2[nd] respondent is a law abiding citizen, who has no intention whatsoever to cause threat to the life or property of the petitioner. 4. The 1[st] respondent Sub Inspector of Police has filed a statement. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said statement read thus; “3. The petitioner alleges that, after being separated the 2[nd] respondent is making calls, demanding to transfer 9.5 cents of land possessed by the petitioner in her name. The petitioner says that, she is residing in that house with fear and mental agony. The fear enhances when her son went out for his job. In the previous marriage the WP(C).No.28223 OF 2020(C) -4- 2[nd] respondent could secured some property in her name in the guise of execution of divorce. 4. It is submitted that on a preliminary enquiry, the police officer deputed by me visited the places where the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent reside. The 2[nd] respondent informed that she only wants a lodging facility, as she now residing in a rented apartment, which is going to sell by its owner. As her financial condition is deplorable, she has no other means to survive. Thereafter hearing both parties I advised both the parties to approach Hon'ble Civil Court for the settlement of dispute.” 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1[st] respondent and also the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent. 6. The Kerala Police Act, 2011 is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the establishment, regulation, powers and duties of the Police Force in the State of Kerala and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Chapter II of the Act deals with duties and functions of Police. Section 3 of the Act deals with general duties of Police. As per Section 3, the Police, as a service functioning category among the people as part of the administrative system shall, subject to the Constitution of India and the laws -5- WP(C).No.28223 OF 2020(C) enacted thereunder, strive in accordance with the law, to ensure that all persons enjoy the freedoms and rights available under the law by ensuring peace and order, integrity of the nation, security of the State and protection of human rights. Section 4 of the Act deals with functions of Police. As per Section 4, the Police Officers shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, perform the functions enumerated in clauses (a) to (s) of Section 4. As per clause (a), the Police Officers shall enforce the law impartially; and as per clause (b), the Police Officers shall protect the life, liberty, property, human rights and dignity of all persons in accordance with the law. 7. Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police thus; "In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, welltrained and well-disciplined force or police whom it can trust, and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice. The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort -6- WP(C).No.28223 OF 2020(C) confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants." 8. In **Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary** **[(2014) 2 SCC 532]** the Apex Court held that, one of the responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the important duties the police has to perform. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the offender to the book. The Apex Court reiterated the said principle in **Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470]** . 9. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent would submit that, as stated in the counter affidavit, the 2[nd] respondent has absolutely no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner or her property. Claiming maintenance against the petitioner's younger son, the 2[nd] respondent has already filed a Maintenance Case before the Family Court, Ernakulam, which is now listed to 24.03.2021. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that by the order dated 17.12.2020, this Court has -7- ## WP(C).No.28223 OF 2020(C) directed the 1[st] respondent to take necessary steps to ensure that no physical harm is caused to the petitioner by the party respondent. 11. The learned Government Pleader would submit that since the petitioner is a senior citizen aged 71 years, the 1[st] respondent is having a constant vigil at the house of the petitioner and that, he shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to the life and property of the petitioner from the side of the 2[nd] respondent. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; - (i) In case there is any threat to the life of the petitioner or her property, from the side of the 2[nd] respondent, the petitioner shall move the 1[st] respondent with a request for Police protection. - (ii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioner, the 1[st] respondent shall take necessary action on that request, without any delay, taking note of the statutory provisions -8- WP(C).No.28223 OF 2020(C) referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. **Sd/-** **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/19/3 -9- WP(C).No.28223 OF 2020(C) ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :** **EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEFORE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASBA NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM ON 10/12/2020**