IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32453 of 2009(B)
1. HAMZA, AGED 70 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. KUNJATHUMMA, AGED 60 YEARS,
3. MOHAMMED SALIH, AGED 33 YEARS,
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. NOUSHEEBA, W/O.MOHAMMED SALIH,
4. ABDUL SALAM P.,
5. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED
For Respondent :SMT.K.GIRIJA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :14/06/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.32453 of 2009-B
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 14th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioners have approached this Court seeking
the following prayer:
“to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1
and 2 not to interfere in the peaceful enjoyment of the
life of the petitioners and not to harass them.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as
follows: The Ist petitioner is aged 70 and is a cardiac patient.
The 2nd petitioner is the wife of the Ist petitioner and is
suffering from various ailments. The 3rd petitioner is the son
of petitioners 1 and 2. The 3rd petitioner married the 3rd
respondent. There is quarrel and there is a crime registered
as evidenced from Ext.P1 FIR under Section 498A read with
34 IPC against all the petitioners. It is stated that petitioners
1 and 2 have approached the Sessions Court and they have
been granted anticipatory bail though it is denied to the 3rd
petitioner.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and also the
WPC No.32453/2009 -2-
learned Government Pleader.
4. Apparently there is another proceeding pending
as MC No.385/2009 and O.P.No.7924/2009 on the file of the
Family Court, Palakkad besides Crime No.656/2009 on the file
of the Mannarkkad Police Station. These proceedings have
been stayed by this Court. There was an attempt at
mediation.
5. Today, when the matter was argued it is
contended by respondents 4 and 5 that the 3rd petitioner has
not complied with the terms of the decision of the Mediator.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 3rd
petitioner is even now prepared. He would point out that the
3rd petitioner has already complied with the direction in the
order dated 26.11.2009 in relation to the replacement of gold
sovereigns except to the extent of 12 sovereigns.
6. In so far as the parties do not appear to be in a
position to come to a settlement in terms of the mediation we
are constrained to dispose of the writ petition by permitting
continuance of the proceedings countenanced by Ext.P1 FIR.
Besides the same, we cannot put on hold the proceedings
pending as O.P.7924/2009 and M.C.385/2009 any further.
WPC No.32453/2009 -3-
Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition as follows:
Respondents 1 and 2 are free to continue with the
investigation of Ext.P1 crime. However, they must bear in
mind the anticipatory bail granted in favour of petitioners 1
and 2 and they shall not be unduly harassed. As far as
O.P.No.7924/2009 and M.C.No.385/2009 are concerned the
said proceedings can go on and a decision taken in
accordance with law. We however make it clear that this
judgment will not stand in the way of the parties coming to a
settlement in the course of the proceedings. With regard to
the custody of children also we leave the petitioner with
liberty to approach the competent forum and seek appropriate
orders in the said regard.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS