Riyaz Babu @ Babu v. District Police Chief, Malappuram; Station House Officer, Pookkottumpadam Police Station; NOUSHADALI S/O UMMER
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- ANIL K. NARENDRAN
- Judgment Date
- 2021-02-04
- Court Decision / Holding
- The petition is disposed with directions: (i) The 2nd respondent SHO shall take necessary steps to ensure there is no threat to law and order in the locality at the instance of the 3rd respondent or his men. (ii) If there is any threat to life or property, the petitioners may move the SHO with a request for police protection, and (iii) the SHO shall act on such requests without delay, following the statutory provisions and jurisprudence cited. No order as to costs.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of; petition allowed in part with directions to the SHO to ensure protection and to respond to protection requests; no costs awarded.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Riyaz Babu @ Babu
- Al-Fad Hisham
Respondents
- District Police Chief, Malappuram
- Station House Officer, Pookkottumpadam Police Station
- NOUSHADALI S/O UMMER
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri K. Rakesh
Counsels for Respondents
- • Government Pleader (Sri Sunil Nath N.B.)
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioners, Riyaz Babu @ Babu and Al-Fad Hisham, residents of Karulayi, Nilambur Taluk, approached the Kerala High Court under Article 226 seeking a mandamus to the District Police Chief, Malappuram, and the Station House Officer, Pookkottumpadam, to provide adequate police protection to their lives and property in the face of threats allegedly emanating from the 3rd respondent, NOUSHADALI S/O UMMER, following a monetary dispute linked to a hotel-like concern and a civil/criminal complaint. A police report dated 20.01.2021 disclosed that the 3rd respondent is the accused in Crime No. 441/2020 (Pookkottumpadam PS) registered by the wife of the 1st petitioner under IPC sections 143, 147, 448, and 506 r/w 149, alleging unlawful assembly and threats. The petition asserts that police must act to prevent intimidation and protect fundamental rights. The 2nd respondent reported that after registration, police patrolling and vigilance were in place, and precautionary measures were ongoing. The court cited Lord Denning’s Due Process of Law and Supreme Court authorities (Manohar Lal Sharma; Ankush Maruti Shinde) to emphasize police duties to protect life, liberty and property, and to investigate. The petition was disposed with directions directing the SHO to ensure no threat, accept protection requests, and act promptly, with no costs awarded.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Due Process of Law (doctrine) - as described by Lord Denning
- Police obligation to protect life, liberty and property (doctrine)
- Investigation aims to search for truth and bring the offender to book (doctrine)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contended that they face imminent threat to life and property from the 3rd respondent following a financial dispute and a prior crime. They sought mandamus under Article 226 to ensure immediate, meaningful police protection from the District Police Chief and the SH0 at Pookkottumpadam Police Station, citing duties under the Kerala Police Act, 2011 to maintain peace and security and to safeguard rights.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argued that the police have already taken preventive measures, including service of notices under Section 41A CrPC, ongoing patrolling, and vigilance. They asserted there is no current threat to law and order, citing the ongoing criminal case (Crime No. 441/2020) and the lack of immediate danger; the police need not grant blanket protection but respond to specific requests for protection as required by law.
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 constitutional duty to protect life, liberty and property, and to investigate offences; reinforces the petitioners’ argument for police protection. |
| Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra | [(2019) 15 SCC 470] | Positive | Cited to reiterate the principle of police protection of life and property and the role of police in maintaining law and order; used as supporting authority for protective measures. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Riyaz Babu @ Babu v. District Police Chief, Malappuram; Station House Officer, Pookkottumpadam Police Station; NOUSHADALI S/O UMMER and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.