High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of by directing the 1st ...

SREEKUMAR T.S. v. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALUVA WEST POLICE STATION, AND MURALEEDHARAN NAIR

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C)No.11842 of 2020(E)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date
2020-09-23
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to render sufficient and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioner, his wife and their workers from any threat or attack of the 2nd respondent and his followers. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to render sufficient and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioner, his wife and their workers from any threat or attack of the 2nd respondent and his followers. No order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sreekumar T.S., S/o Sreedharan Nair, Mandangattu Madom, West Kadungalloor, Aluva-683 110

Respondents

  • The Station House Officer Aluva West Police Station, Kottappuram, Alangad-683 511
  • Muraleedharan Nair, S/o Krishnan Nair, Chennaiadu Veedu, Near Alulungal Bhagavathy Temple, Aduvathuruthu, West Veliyathunad Post, Alangad, Ernakulam-683 511

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. M.P. Ashok Kumar
  • • Smt. Bindu Sreedhar Shree
  • • Shri. Asif N

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri P.P. Thajudheen - Sr. Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks mandamus and police protection to safeguard the life of the petitioner, his wife and workers from threats and possible attacks by the 2nd respondent and his followers, arising from a civil dispute over a pathway through the petitioner’s property in Karumalloor, Paravur Taluk. The petitioner had obtained a temporary injunction (O.S. No. 562 of 2017) from the Munsiff’s Court, North Paravur, restraining the 2nd respondent and others from altering the B Schedule pathway or obstructing the A Schedule property until further orders. Despite the injunction, threats and obstructions persisted, prompting multiple complaints to the Station House Officer (SHO) on 28 May 2018 and 7 December 2019. The 2nd respondent and his followers allegedly pressurized the petitioner to withdraw the suit and settle the matter, including threats to his wife and workers. The court notes that interim police protection was granted at admission and has been extended. References to the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (Chapter II, Sections 3 and 4), and to constitutional duties underscore a police obligation to protect rights. The judgment also cites Denning’s Due Process, and Supreme Court authorities (Manohar Lal Sharma; Ankush Maruti Shinde) to emphasize police responsibilities and the purpose of investigation. The court ultimately directs police protection and disposes the petition without costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Due Process of Law (Lord Denning)
  • Police must protect life, liberty and property
  • Investigation aims to search for truth and bring offenders to book

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends for a mandamus commanding the Station House Officer, Aluva West Police Station, to provide sufficient and effective police protection to the petitioner, his wife and workers from threats and possible attacks by the 2nd respondent and followers, and to take action against the 2nd respondent for obstructing entry to the petitioner’s property. He relies on Article 226 of the Constitution and the Kerala Police Act’s duty to protect life, liberty and property and to maintain peace. He points to the prior injunction in OS 562/2017 restraining obstruction, and to persistent threats despite police warnings. He seeks protection so that the civil dispute can proceed unhindered and lawful action can be taken against those threatening harm.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents did not appear; the Government Pleader stated that the SHO has summoned the 2nd respondent and warned of stringent action if threats continue. The respondents’ stance is that law-and-order measures are in place, and no additional relief beyond police protection is required; the court is invited to rely on police actions already taken and dismiss other aspects.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary[(2014) 2 SCC 532]PositiveCited to support police obligation to protect life, liberty and property and the role of police in investigation.
Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra[(2019) 15 SCC 470]PositiveCited to reinforce the principle that police protection of life, liberty and property is a police responsibility and investigation aims to bring offenders to justice.

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 SREEKUMAR T.S. v. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALUVA WEST POLICE STATION, AND MURALEEDHARAN NAIR 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 1ST ASWINA, 1942** ## **W.P.(C)No.11842 OF 2020(E)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SREEKUMAR T.S., S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, MANDANGATTU MADOM, WEST KADUNGALLOOR, ALUVA-683 110** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR SHRI.ASIF N** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ALUVA WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAPPURAM, ALANGAD-683 511 2 MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, S/O KRISHNAN NAIR, CHENNAADU VEEDU, NEAR ALULUNGAL BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, ADUVATHURUTHU, WEST.VELIYATHUNAD POST, ALANGAD, ERNAKULAM-683 511** **R1 BY SRI P.P. THAJUDHEEN-SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## W.P.(C)No.11842 of 2020(E) 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who owns 20 cents of land in Survey No.153/9 of Karumalloor Village in Paravur Taluk, who is presently residing at Thrikkakkara, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent Station House Officer, Aluva West Police Station, to provide sufficient and adequate protection to the life of the petitioner, his wife and workers from the threat and possible attack from the 2[nd] respondent and his supporters. The petitioner has also sought for an order directing the 1[st] respondent Station House Officer to take appropriate legal action against the 2[nd] respondent and his supporters for causing obstruction to the entry of the petitioner, his wife and workers to his property situated in Survey No.153/9 of Karumalloor Village in Paravur Taluk. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, there is civil dispute between the petitioner and his immediate neighbours in connection with a pathway passing through the eastern side of the petitioner's property. The petitioner filed O.S.No.562 of 2017 before the Munsiff's Court, North Paravur W.P.(C)No.11842 of 2020(E) 3 and obtained Ext.P2 order of temporary injunction dated 15.09.2017 in I.A.No.1992 of 2017, against one Sasidharan Nair and two others, who are restrained from altering the pathway (B Schedule pathway) or obstructing the enjoyment of property (A Schedule property) by the petitioner, until further orders. Despite the order of injunction the neighbours used to threaten the petitioner and obstruct entry of his vehicle to that property. The petitioner filed complaints before the 1[st] respondent Station House Officer, on 28.05.2018 and 07.12.2019, and they were warned by the Police. Now, the 2[nd] respondent and his followers are threatening the petitioner to withdraw the suit and settle the matter. The followers of the 2[nd] respondent are also threatening the wife of the petitioner and his workers. Therefore, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 complaint dated 30.05.2020 before the 1[st] respondent Station House Officer. 3. On 17.06.2020, when this writ petition came for admission, this Court issued notice before admission to the 2[nd] respondent by special messenger and the learned Government Pleader took notice for the 1[st] respondent. W.P.(C)No.11842 of 2020(E) 4 4. On 01.07.2020, this Court admitted the matter on file. While ordering the writ petition to be posted on 23.07.2020 for the counter affidavit of the respondents, this Court granted an interim order of police protection as prayed for, i.e., an order directing the 1[st] respondent Station House Officer to give sufficient and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his wife, from the threat and attack of the 2[nd] respondent and his followers, till then. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1[st] respondent. Despite service of notice, none appears 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 W.P.(C)No.11842 of 2020(E) 5 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 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 ## W.P.(C)No.11842 of 2020(E) 6 bring the accused to justice. The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort 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. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the 1[st] respondent Station House Officer has already summoned the 2[nd] respondent to the Police Station and strictly warned him that stringent action would be taken in case the 2[nd] respondent and his followers causes any threat to the life of the petitioner, his wife and workers. W.P.(C)No.11842 of 2020(E) 7 10. Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1[st] respondent Station House Officer, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1[st] respondent to render sufficient and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioner, his wife and their workers from any threat or attack of the 2[nd] respondent and his followers. No order as to costs. **Sd/-** JV **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** W.P.(C)No.11842 of 2020(E) 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DT 01.06.2019 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF TAX OF THE PROPERTY** **EXHIBIT P2** **PHOTOCOPY OF THE INJUNCTION GRANTED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT IN OS 562/2017 DT 15/09/2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PARAVUR MUNSIFF COURT** **EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 30.05.2020 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT**