Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41697
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
MARY COLETE JOHN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C)/10725/2021
PRAVEEN VYASAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, NAVEEN THOMAS, TITTO THOMAS, S.VAISAKH
The court established the principle that immediate police protection can be mandated in situations of personal safety threats, irrespective of ongoing civil disputes.
Headnote:
Protection - Writ Petition - Not applicable - The court emphasized the need for police protection for the petitioner, safeguarding her life due to the ongoing property dispute, while leaving civil rights resolution to competent courts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a 65-year-old differently-abled woman, sought protection from potential threats related to a property dispute after her mother's death. Complaints regarding threats were made against her brother and sister, who were involved in a familial dispute over property inheritance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner faced a legitimate threat to her life due to the family dispute. Despite acknowledging the property disputes, the court ruled that immediate police protection was necessary for the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the petitioner required police protection due to threats stemming from a familial property dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the threat to the petitioner's life necessitated police intervention, differentiating between the need for immediate protection and the resolution of property rights, which should be determined in civil courts.
Final Decision: The court ordered adequate police protection for the petitioner due to legitimate threats to her life while leaving property disputes open for civil resolution.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers :
“i) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P1 and P2 complaints as expeditiously as possible.
ii) Direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to offer adequate protection to the life and property of the petitioner.
iii) Issue any other Writ, Order or Directions which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. When this matter came up for consideration on
30.4.2021, this Court passed the following order :
“Government Pleader takes notice for R1 and R2. Notice by speed post to respondents 3 & 4. In view of the peculiar circumstances projected in the writ petition, the 1st respondent shall verify the allegations personally instead of deputing any subordinate and do the needful in accordance with law.
Post on 14.5.2021 for instructions on the above steps adopted.”
3. Thereafter, the matter again came up on
14.5.2021 and this Court passed a detailed order on that day also, which is extracted hereunder :
“After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to an interim order directing the 1st respondent to ensure that she faces no threat or other form of intimidation from respondents 3 and 4.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent may also be directed to personally enquire into the complaints submitted by the petitioner, as this court had through order dated 30.04.2021 specifically directed the 1st respondent to do the needful without deputing any subordinate officer.
3. I direct the 1st respondent to cause enquiry into Ext.P1 complaint as directed in the order dated 30.4.2021 by himself without deputing any subordinate police officers for the same.
Post on 31.05.2021 for the statement from the 1st respondent which shall specially indicate the action taken by him pursuant to this order.”
4. Thereafter, the case was posted on several occasions. On 22.6.2021, the matter came up for consideration and this Court passed the following order :
“Both sides submitted that the writ petition can be finally heard on 1.7.2021. The counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that they have filed a counter. The Government Pleader also submitted that a statement is filed. Registry will enclose the counter affidavit and statement along with the writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner is free to file a reply in the meanwhile.
The case will be taken up for final hearing positively on 1.7.2021.”
5. Thereafter, the matter again came up for consideration before this Court on 01.07.2021. On that day also, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he want to file a reply affidavit. Then again, the case is posted finally to this date (on 07.07.2021). Today also, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he want to file a reply and he want to implead several other senior police officers and to amend the writ petition with some other reliefs.
6. The counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the allegations in the writ petition are not correct and under the guise of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner is trying to interfere with the civil disputes between the parties. He insisted for an early hearing of this case.
7. This Court, as per the order dated 14.05.2021, directed the 1st respondent to visit the house of the petitioner and file a detailed report before this Court. As directed by this Court, the officer concerned filed a detailed report. The relevant portion of the report is extracted hereunder :
“4. It is submitted that petitioner was residing along with her mother Elsy John in Lana cottage, Valiyathope. Elsy John have four children. Petitioner Mary Colete John is the Elder daughter, Irene PP John is the second daughter, Berlin is the third daughter and Joseph Sabin John is the only son and youngest one. Irene PP John and Joseph Sabin John are
