High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of with direction that if there is any...

Sunil Kumar G.S. v. City Police Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram; City Police Commissioner, Kollam; Sub Inspector of Police, Anchalummoodu Police Station; Manikuttan Ponnayyan; Soumya Manikuttan

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.4907 OF 2020(K)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date
2020-12-01
Court Decision / Holding
In case of any threat to the life of the petitioner or his family from the family members or supporters of respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner shall move an appropriate complaint before the Station House Officer, Anchalummoodu Police Station, in which event the said officer shall take necessary action on that complaint, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra.
Final Disposition
Disposed of with direction that if there is any threat to life, petitioner may file a complaint with the Anchalummoodu SHO, who shall act under law and precedents.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sunil Kumar G.S.

Respondents

  • City Police Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram City, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001
  • City Police Commissioner, Kollam City, Kollam - 691 001
  • The Sub Inspector of Police, Anchalummoodu Police Station, Anchalummoodu, Kollam - 691 601
  • Manikuttan Ponnayyan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri C. Rajendran
  • • Sri B. N. Haskar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri P.P. Thajudheen
  • • Sri K. Manoj Chandran

Case Synopsis & Summary

Sunil Kumar G.S., the petitioner, seeks a writ of mandamus under Article 226 to compel respondents 1–3 to provide effective police protection to his life and that of his family from respondents 4 and 5 and their supporters. The petitioner alleges that the 4th respondent, Manikuttan Ponnayyan, and his wife, 5th respondent Soumya Manikuttan, with their men, have threatened the petitioner’s parents in Kerala in the context of business disputes involving the petitioner’s brother, Dr. Anil Kumar, who operates in the United Arab Emirates. An interim order directing police protection was issued on 20.02.2020. The 5th respondent countered that she has resided abroad for years and only recently visited Kerala; she denies threats. The 3rd respondent’s statement notes that there are civil/criminal disputes between the parties, including two crimes (Crime Nos. 1833/2020 and 1881/2020) at Anchalummoodu Police Station, with investigations ongoing; it is submitted that there is no present situation warranting police protection against 4th and 5th respondents. The court stresses the Kerala Police Act, the duties of police, and principles from Denning and Indian Supreme Court decisions, but refrains from ruling on merits due to ongoing investigations. The petition is disposed of with a direction: if there is any threat to the petitioner or family from 4th–5th respondents, the petitioner may file a complaint with the Anchalummoodu SHO, who shall act under the law and precedents.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaKerala Police Act, 2011 - Section 3Kerala Police Act, 2011 - Section 4Indian Penal Code - Sections 384, 385, 420, 465, 468, 471, 506(ii)Indian Penal Code - Sections 294(b), 451, 506 read with 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Due Process of law (as described by Lord Denning)
  • Police protection of life, liberty and dignity as a fundamental duty of the police
  • Investigation aims to search for truth and bring offenders to book (as articulated in Ankush Maruti Shinde)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Sunil Kumar G.S. contends that he and his family face threats from the 4th and 5th respondents and seeks a mandamus under Article 226 to secure continuous police protection. He cites ongoing disputes involving his brother in the UAE and points to Crime Nos. 1833/2020 and 1881/2020 as evidence of risk, urging the Court to uphold the police’s constitutional duties under the Kerala Police Act to protect life and liberty. He requests not only interim relief but a binding order ensuring protection in all relevant settings until the disputes are resolved.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that there is no current threat warranting blanket protection. They reference ongoing investigations into two criminal cases at Anchalummoodu Police Station and emphasize that the 5th respondent has lived abroad for years, visiting Kerala only briefly. They argue the writ should not grant extraneous protection beyond what is necessary and that the police can act promptly if a genuine threat materializes, as per statutory duties under the Kerala Police Act and the existing court directions.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary(2014) 2 SCC 532PositiveCited to support that police have a duty to protect life, liberty and property and to conduct investigations as part of maintaining public order.
Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra(2019) 15 SCC 470PositiveCited for reiterating that investigation aims to search for truth and bring the offender to book, underpinning police responsibilities.

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 Sunil Kumar G.S. v. City Police Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram; City Police Commissioner, Kollam; Sub Inspector of Police, Anchalummoodu Police Station; Manikuttan Ponnayyan; Soumya Manikuttan 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** **TUESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.4907 OF 2020(K)** ## **PETITIONER :** **SUNIL KUMAR G.S., AGED 47 YEARS S/O.GOPINATHAN PILLAI, CHAMOLIL VEEDU, PAMPALILCHERRY, PANAYAM VILLAGE, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM - 691 601. BY ADVS. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.B.N.HASKAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,**| |---|---| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| |**2**|**CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,**| ||**KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM - 691 001.**| |**3**|**THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| ||**ANCHALUMOODU POLICE STATION,**| ||**ANCHALUMOODU, KOLLAM - 691 601.**| |**4**|**MANIKUTTAN PONNAYYAN,**| ||**S/O.PONNAYAN, PUNNAVILA KATHU VEEDU,**| ||**VELLANADU, MUNDELA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -**| ||**695 543.**| |**5**|**SOUMYA MANIKUTTAN,**| ||**W/O.MANIKUTTAN,PUNNAVILA KATHU VEEDU,**| ||**VELLANADU, MUNDELA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -**| ||**695 543.**| ||**R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.P.THAJUDHEEN**| ||**R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN**| |**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON**|| |**01.12.2020,**|**THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE**| |**FOLLOWING:**|| -2- WP(C).No.4907 OF 2020(K) ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to give effective and adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and the members of his family from respondents 4 and 5 and their men. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner's brother Dr.Anil Kumar is having certain business transactions with the 4[th] respondent. It is alleged in the writ petition that the 4[th] respondent with the help of his men, threatened the parents of the petitioner in Kerala. The 5[th] respondent is the wife of the 4[th] respondent. 3. On 20.02.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice by special messenger to respondents 4 and 5. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3. This Court granted an interim order to the effect that, if there is any threat to the life of the petitioner, the police shall accord him necessary protection. WP(C).No.4907 OF 2020(K) -3- 4. The 5[th] respondent has filed counter affidavit through her power of attorney, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. In the counter affidavit it is pointed out that the 5[th] respondent is settled in Dubai for the past more than 14 years, along with her husband, the 4[th] respondent herein, and she had come to Kerala lastly on 26.11.2015 and returned on 16.01.2020. 5. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 3[rd] respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Anchalammoodu Police Station. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of that statement read thus; “3. The petitioner's brother one Anil Kumar is the CEO and MD of a company at United Arab Emirates namely 'Airolink Contractings LLC'. The 4[th] respondent is a non resident Indian in United Arab Emirates. The 5[th] respondent is the wife of the 4[th] respondent. 4. It is alleged that the 4[th] respondent was the Sub Contractor of the above mentioned Company and there were disputes in connection with the activities connected with each other. It is further alleged that the said Anil Kumar has moved certain complaints against Respondents 4 and 5 and legal proceedings are pending before the authorities in UAE. The relatives of Respondents 4 and 5 approached the petitioner seeking amicable settlement in the issue. -4- WP(C).No.4907 OF 2020(K) 5. It is submitted that one Binukumar, brother of the 4[th] respondent, filed private complaint before the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.1, Kollam and in compliance of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Court, Crime No.1833/2020 was registered at Anchalummoodu Police Station against the brother of the petitioner u/s 384, 385, 420, 465, 468, 471 & 506(ii) IPC. 6. It is submitted that certain persons including relatives of the respondents 4 and 5 reached the house of the petitioner situated at Panayam, within the limits of Anchalammoodu Police Station and during settlement talks untoward incident occurred and Crime No.1881/2020 was registered at Anchalammoodu Police Station u/s 294(b), 451, 506 r/w 34 IPC. The investigation of the said two crimes are in progress. At present there is no situation warranting an order of police protection to the petitioner against respondents 4 and 5.” 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5. 7. 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 -5- WP(C).No.4907 OF 2020(K) 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 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. 8. Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the -6- WP(C).No.4907 OF 2020(K) ## 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 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." 9. 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]** . 10. As can be seen from the statement filed on behalf of the 3[rd] respondent, the brother of the 4[th] respondent has -7- WP(C).No.4907 OF 2020(K) filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam and in compliance of the direction issued by the Magistrate Court, Crime No.1833/2020 of Anchalummoodu Police Station has been registered against the brother of the petitioner, alleging offence under Sections 384, 385, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code. Certain persons including the relatives of respondents 4 and 5 are arrayed as accused in Crime No.1881/2020 of Anchalummoodu Police Station, registered in connection with an incident happened in the house of the petitioner at Panayam, alleging offence under Sections 294(b), 451 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. In these two crimes, investigation is in progress. In the statement it has also been stated that, at present there is no situation warranting an order of police protection against respondents 4 and 5. 11. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that since the investigation in Crime Nos.1881 and 1883 of 2020 of Anchalummoodu Police Station are in progress, this Court need to express anything on the merits of the rival -8- WP(C).No.4907 OF 2020(K) contentions by the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. 12. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that in case there is any law and order problem or any threat to the life of the petitioner or his family members from the side of the family members or supporters of respondents 4 and 5, the Station House Officer of the Anchalummoodu Police Station shall take necessary action. 13. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction; In case of any threat to the life of the petitioner or his family members from the family members or supporters of respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner shall move an appropriate complaint before the Station House Officer, Anchalummoodu Police Station, in which event, the said officer shall take necessary action on that complaint, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. Sd/- ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/01/12 -9- WP(C).No.4907 OF 2020(K) ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04/02/2020.** **EXHIBIT P2** **A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04/02/2020.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R5(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASSPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R5(b): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASSPORT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.**