Back
2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2450
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PIUS C. KURIKOSE, K.HARILAL, JJ
ELIYAMMA – Appellant
Versus
RAJAN – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 30076/2011
['V PREMCHAND']
Authorities must act on serious complaints suggesting threats to individuals' safety, ensuring timely investigations and protective measures.
Headnote:
Protection - Writ Petition - Act Section List - The court ordered immediate action on the petitioner's complaint, emphasizing the duty to investigate threats against her life, thereby highlighting the legal obligation to ensure the safety of individuals in distress.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a senior citizen, complained about inaction on her grievances against her neighbors, alleging threats and prior assault. Her civil dispute was unresolved, exacerbating tensions with the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioner's concerns about potential threats, deciding to direct the authorities to investigate the complaint and ensure her safety.
Issues: Whether the first respondent adequately addressed the petitioner's complaints about threats against her safety.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that authorities have a duty to investigate public complaints that threaten individual safety and well-being.
Final Decision: The court directed an immediate inquiry into the complaint and ensured protective measures for the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The grievance voiced by the petitioner, a lady and senior citizen, is that the first respondent has not taken any action on the complaint which was filed against Ext.P5 and that even Ext.P6, which was submitted on 21/10/2011, has not been enquired into. It is alleged by the petitioner that the civil dispute between her and the respondents 3 and 4, who are neighbours, is pending consideration by the Munsiff Court, Adoor and on account of the pendency of the civil dispute the relationship between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 have been strained for quite some time. Respondents 3 and 4 have been perpetrating many illegal acts against the petitioner. They have been threatening the petitioner with danger to the life and limbs. Once the petitioner was assaulted by them and the petitioner suffered fracture on the shoulder, anticipating registration of WPC.No.30076/2011 2 crime by the police, the 3rd respondent moved an application for anticipatory bail before this court. On the strength of the order passed by this court not to arrest the 3rd respondent pending consideration of the anticipatory bail application, respondents 3 and 4 are going about with more vigorous threats against the petitioner.
3. As directed by us, Sri.Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran learned Government Pleader has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and we have heard him also. We are not inclined to examine the correctness of the various allegations levelled by the petitioner in this writ petition against respondents 3 and 4. We are of the view that limited relief can be given to the petitioner even without issuing notice to respondents 3 and 4. The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of in the following terms;
The first respondent is directed to take up Ext.P6 immediately and to conduct an enquiry into the same. As part of the enquiry, it is open to the first respondent to summon respondents 3 and 4 if necessary. If the enquiry reveals that there is subsisting threat to the life and limbs of the petitioner WPC.No.30076/2011 3 from the part of respondents 3 and 4, the first respondent will take such steps as is necessary for protecting the life and limbs of the petitioner. At any rate, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to keep vigil over the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 and the places of their residence and to ensure that the dispute between them does not give rise to any violence or other law and order situations.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE.
dpk
