High Court Kerala High Court

Mohammdali vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 16 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Mohammdali vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 16 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17786 of 2008(P)


1. MOHAMMDALI, AGED 47,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

3. KADAVATH KUNJUMON,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :16/09/2008

 O R D E R
      K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
                  ------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C) No.17786 OF 2008
                  ------------------------------------
        Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008

                        J U D G M E N T

~~~~~~~~~~~

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that he

is being harassed by the police at the instance of the

3rd respondent. The said respondent is the brother of

petitioner’s estranged wife. The petitioner is the owner of a flat

at G.K.Sankunni Road, Nadakkavu, Kozhikode. He submits the

1st respondent is threatening and intimidating him to compel

him to assign the rights over the flat in favour of his wife. In the

above background, this writ petition was filed seeking

appropriate directions against the police officials.

2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions,

submitted that the flat is let out and the 3/4th of the flat is owned

by the children of the petitioner. They filed a complaint before

the police alleging that the petitioner is threatening and

intimidating them. In the above background, the petitioner was

W.P.(C) No.17786/2008 2

summoned to the police station. But, he has chosen not to

appear, it is submitted. The learned Government Pleader further

submitted that the police have no intention to interfere in the

family dispute or harass the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner will not intimidate or harass his children.

The above submissions, made by the learned Government

Pleader and the learned counsel for the petitioner, are recorded

and the writ petition is disposed of.

(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)

(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)

ps