High Court Kerala High Court

Benny Thundathil vs S.I.Of Police on 14 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
Benny Thundathil vs S.I.Of Police on 14 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 11040 of 2010(D)


1. BENNY THUNDATHIL, S/O.ULAHANNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. S.I.OF POLICE, SANTHANPARA POLICE
                       ...       Respondent

2. C.I.OF POLICE, DEVIKULAM CIRCLE,

3. JIMMY GEORGE, VENDANATH HOUSE,

4. K.V.SHAJI, KOONANIKAL HOUSE,

5. SAJI KUMAR, KOCHUVAZHAYIL HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY

                For Respondent  :SRI.SAJI MATHEW

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. 11040 OF 2010 D
              ---------------------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 14th June, 2010

                               JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a mandamus

commanding respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and

meaningful protection to the life of the petitioner. Briefly put,

the case of the petitioner is as follows:

Petitioner is a member of the Congress Party and is the

Udumbanchola Mandalam President of Congress (I). According

to him, there was brutal attack by one Mr. Jimmy George who is

arrayed as the third respondent. Allegations are raised against

respondents 4 and 5 also. Ext.P1 is a FIR and FI Statement. It

is stated that there is political enmity. A Counter Affidavit is

filed by respondents 3 to 5 denying the allegations.

2. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

In the circumstances of the case and in view of the apprehension

WPC.11040/2010 D 2

of the petitioner and also registration of the crime, we dispose of

the Writ Petition by making the interim order absolute. We

make it clear that we have not pronounced on the correctness of

the allegations made by the petitioner or the party respondents

and if any matter comes up before any competent Court or

Forum, they are free to decide the matter untrammeled by

anything contained in this Judgment.

Sd/=

K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE

Sd/=
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE
kbk.

// True Copy //

PS to Judge