High Court Kerala High Court

Joseph Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Joseph Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(Crl.).No. 558 of 2009(S)


1. JOSEPH THOMAS, PULLAVALLIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. JOSHI JOSEPH,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. KOSHI THOMAS,

5. MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT,

6. MARIAYAMMA TITUTS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :04/01/2010

 O R D E R
                            K. M. JOSEPH &
                       P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
              --------------------------------------------------
                   W.P(CRL). NO. 558 OF 2009 S
              ---------------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 4th January, 2010

                              JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, J.

This is sequel to Ext.P4 Judgment where the parties had

approached this Court in connection with the very same matter

essentially. In the present writ petition, this Court was pleased

to order notice to the fourth respondent, taking note of the need

for true implementation of settlement evidenced in Ext.P4.

One Mrs. Daisy Thomas, the mother of the first petitioner and

the fourth respondent, has been under treatment. According to

the petitioners, she is ready for being discharged from the

hospital. Reference is made to Ext.P5.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent.

We also interacted with the second petitioner and the fourth

W.P.(CRL).558/09 S 2

respondent. The first petitioner is the brother of the fourth

respondent and the second petitioner is the maternal Uncle of

the first petitioner and the fourth respondent. Learned counsel

for the petitioners would submit that what they essentially want

is that when the mother is brought from the hospital to the

ancestral house, the fourth respondent may be present. It is the

common case that the key to the ancestral house is with the

petitioners.

3. The fourth respondent actually wanted to file Counter

Affidavit. But, since we are not going into the allegations, we

do not think it necessary. The fourth respondent would state

that he is prepared to be present when his mother is discharged

and brought to the ancestral house on condition that the time

when the mother should be brought may be notified. Learned

counsel for the petitioners submits that the mother would be

discharged and brought to the ancestral house at 2.30 P.M. on

13.01.2010. The fourth respondent submits that he will be

W.P.(CRL).558/09 S 3

present in the ancestral house when his mother is brought at 2.30

P.M. on 13.01.2010. We record these submissions and close the

Writ Petition. This will be without prejudice to the operation of

Ext.P4 Judgment.

Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE

Sd/=
P.Q. BARKATH ALI,
JUDGE
kbk.

// True Copy //

PS to Judge