Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7517
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ, J, K VINOD CHANDRAN, J
ELIAMMA THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE – Respondent
WP(C)/28284/2015
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
The court established that individuals facing threats have the right to seek immediate police protection and that authorities are obligated to respond to such requests appropriately.
Headnote:
Protection - Police Protection - Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The court emphasized the necessity of police protection in cases of threat or intimidation, affirming the ability of petitioners to seek remedies through local law enforcement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought police protection from alleged aggression by private respondents, who are family members of the second petitioner. A prior complaint regarding an incident on 9.8.2015 had already been registered.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted there was a legitimate apprehension of harm directed at the petitioners and acknowledged the ongoing investigation into a previously reported incident, allowing room for further complaints as necessary.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to police protection against threats posed by the private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to seek police protection is valid when there are credible threats, and authorities must act accordingly to ensure the safety of individuals under threat.
Final Decision: The writ petition is closed with a directive to local authorities to take necessary action upon receiving complaints.
J U D G M E N T
Ashok Bhushan, C.J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. No notice need be issued to respondents 3 to 5 in view of the nature of Judgment being passed in the Writ Petition.
2. By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for adequate and effective police protection to the petitioners and their family members and property from respondents 3 to 5. The 3rd respondent is the brother-in-law and the 5th respondent is the father-in-law of the 2nd petitioner. The 4th respondent is the driver of 3rd and 5th respondents. Petitioners have made allegations against the private respondents that they have attacked them on 9.8.2015, with regard to which complaint was submitted W.P.(C) No. 28284/2015 and a crime has already been registered, being Crime No.116/2015. Petitioners' grievance is that they apprehend further attack from private respondents. Hence, they have come up in the writ petition praying for police protection The 2nd petitioner further submits that he has sent a complaint, Ext.P3, to the Superintendent of Police with regard to the incident on 9.8.2015 and a crime has already been registered, which is under investigation.
3. We only observe that, in event any offence is attempted or committed as apprehended by the petitioners, it shall be open for the petitioners to file appropriate complaint before the 2nd respondent, who shall look into it and take appropriate measures.
With the above observation, the writ petition is closed.
