Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 24217
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.M.JOSEPH, M.C.HARI RANI, JJ
B.SREELATHA – Appellant
Versus
S.I. OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA – Respondent
WP(C)/32571/2010
SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL), SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS, SRI.C.A.CHACKO, SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY, SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K), SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY, SRI. BINDU SASTHAMANGALAM, SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR, SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN, SRI.R.RAJENDRA PRASAD
The state is obligated to protect individuals from threats and ensure their safety under lawful circumstances.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Protection against Threats - Act Section List - The court referenced the principle of mandamus in directing law enforcement to provide protection to the petitioners in the face of alleged threats from respondents, emphasizing the importance of personal safety within the legal framework.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners alleged threats and harassment from respondents regarding financial debts, claiming they were in fear for their lives as a result of the respondents' actions.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to legal protection against threats from the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the state has a duty to protect individuals from unlawful threats and harassment.
Final Decision: The court ordered that law enforcement must investigate and afford protection to the petitioners if threats were substantiated.
J U D G M E N T
K.M.JOSEPH,J The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ directing respondents 1 and 3 to take necessary actions against Ext.P1 and P4 complaints and to render adequate and meaningful protection to the life of the petitioners and other family members to live at their house peacefully.
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:
3. The 4th respondent was an employee of the 2nd petitioner who was a wholesale veterinary medicine dealer. Respondents 5 to 13 are conducting money lending business. Foul play is alleged against the 4th respondent. The 2nd petitioner met financial crisis. When the 2nd petitioner questioned the malpractices of the 4th respondent, he influenced others and all the respondents threatened and harassed the 1st petitioner at her employment place, house etc. for getting the money immediately. The petitioners are ready to clear their W.P.C.No.32571 of 2010 2 debts and they wanted six months time for getting money. But the respondents threatened the petitioners that they will kill the entire family in a well planned manner.
4. Today when the matter came up, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the party respondents submits that much sums are due from the petitioners. Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners. They would submit that they will only take legal steps for the recovery of the debts due from the petitioners and there is no question of any threat to the petitioners, as alleged.
5. We record the submissions and we further direct that if the petitioners bring to the notice of the 1st respondent any threat from respondents 4 to 13, the 1st respondent will look into it and if the complaint is found to be genuine, the 1st respondent shall afford protection to the life of the petitioners as against respondents 4 to 13.
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.32571 of 2010 3 W.P.C.No.32571 of 2010 4 W.P.C.No.32571 of 2010 5 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
.No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT
30/082010
