SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Ker) 439

High Court of Kerala
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Darlin @ Babu & Others
Versus
State of Kerala, Rep. By The Chief Secretary & Others
WP(C). No. 14042 of 2012 (E)
Decided on: 18-06-2012

Subject

Civil Dispute - Property Dispute

Act Referred

KERALA POLICE ACT : .

Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226 - Police Act, 2011, Section 110(1) & (3) - There is alternative remedy for the unauthorized act done by the police officer under this act .

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Sabu George, Nidhi Balachandran, Advocates.
For the Respondents: R1 to R3, P. Vijayaraghavan, State Attorney, James Mathew kadavan, Govt. Pleader.

Judgment:-

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The petitioners and the 4th respondent are siblings. There are some disputes between them in relation to property. If the petitioners place a complaint about the unauthorized exercise of authority, in violation of law, by any policeman or officer, provisions of the Kerala Police Act provides adequatealternate remedy. The petitioners could take recourse to the Police Complaints Authority and the measures available through that authority. This is available at the district level and the state level. The law governs this as per the Police Acthas been discussed in detail in the judgment of this Courtreported in Aslam & another v. State of Kerala & Others[2011 (2) KLT 601]. In view of such alternate remedy being available and because civil disputes are pending before the civil court, we do not find any ground to issue any order directing the police not to `harass' the petitioners. The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the petitioners' taking recourse to what is aforesaid.



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top