Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2791
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.M.JOSEPH, M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ
AKHILA YOUSUF – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/19394/2010
SRI.P.K.ANIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI. T K VIPINDAS FOR 1 TO 5 SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R6-9 SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) FOR R6-9
The court affirmed the importance of state intervention for protecting individuals when threats arise, maintaining judicial neutrality in underlying disputes.
Headnote:
Protection - Police Protection - N/A - The petitioners sought police protection due to threats from respondents, emphasizing the state's duty to safeguard individuals' rights and safety.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners requested police protection from respondents due to reported threats. The case involved family members and allegations against other parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined not to address the merits of the petitions but ensured the petitioners' safety through interim orders pending further investigations.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to police protection amid allegations against other parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of state protection in circumstances of apprehended harm while leaving the merits to be resolved in due course.
Final Decision: Interim orders for police protection granted while deferring on merits.
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 3 to 5 to provide adequate and sufficient police protection to the lives and property of the petitioners and direct the 4th respondent to take action upon Ext.P7 petition filed before him and the 3rd respondent.
2. Briefly the case of the petitioners is as follows. The first petitioner is the daughter of petitioners 2 and 3. The 6th respondent is the husband of the first petitioner. Allegations are made by the petitioners against the party respondents.
3. We heard learned counsel for the parties, including the learned Government Pleader.
W.P.(C).No. 19394 of 2010
4. We are not pronouncing on the merits of the allegations made by the petitioners. Of course, learned counsel for the party respondents submits that the said respondents have filed complaints before the police.
5. In view of the apprehension made by the petitioners, we dispose of the Writ Petition by making the interim order absolute. We, however, make it clear that when the matter involving the petitioners and the party respondents comes up before any forum/court, the said forum/court shall proceed to decide the matter untrammeled by anything contained in this judgment.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge tm
