Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27457
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
RADHA A. – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE – Respondent
WP(C)/30270/2021
SHAJIN S.HAMEED MELWIN BYJU
Individuals have the right to seek protection against harassment, and law enforcement must act promptly on complaints of intimidation, regardless of financial obligations.
Headnote:
Harassment - Petitioner's Allegations - Relevant Provisions List - The court discusses the legal rights of the petitioner concerning harassment by a financial institution, emphasizing statutory remedies for loan recovery and the obligation of law enforcement to protect citizens from intimidation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged harassment by a financial institution over a loan taken by her son in her name, claiming she has no liability for the debt. She sought police protection, which was denied, leading her to file a writ petition for relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's claims and the response from the financial institution, deciding to close the writ petition while allowing the petitioner to file a complaint if threats continue, ensuring police investigate promptly.
Issues: Whether the financial institution's actions constitute harassment and if the petitioner is entitled to police protection against such actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that statutory remedies exist for loan recovery but also stressed the importance of protecting individuals from intimidation, underscoring the need for timely police intervention.
Final Decision: The writ petition is closed with liberty to file a police complaint if harassment continues.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the 3rd respondent, which is a Financial Institution, is harassing her using extra constitutional methods and engaging hired mercenaries to force her to pay off a loan liability availed of by her younger son in her name, from them.
2. The petitioner says that she has no responsibility with respect to the afore loan liability - though it was taken in her name by her son - but that she is being constantly harassed by the 3rd respondent and their men; and thus that she was constrained to approach the 1st respondent – Commissioner of Police seeking protection, but that since it was denied, she has been forced to approach this Court through this writ petition.
3. The afore submissions of Shri.Shajin S.Hameed, learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by Shri.Sabu S.Kallaramoola, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, saying that the afore allegations are all incorrect and that his client has only invoked their statutory remedies to realize the outstanding in the loan account from the petitioner.
Taking note of the afore submissions and recording the same, I close this writ petition; however, leaving liberty to the petitioner to make a complaint before the 2nd respondent – Station House Officer, if the afore undertaking is violated in any manner whatsoever; in which event, the said Authority will take cognizance of the same and complete action thereon, including by registering necessary Crimes quickly and swiftly, without any avoidable delay. Needless to say, the 2nd respondent will also ensure that the life of the petitioner is adequately and effectively protected without anyone causing any threat or intimidation to her in future.
