Jose.K.P vs Superintendent Of Police on 5 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Jose.K.P vs Superintendent Of Police on 5 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2274 of 2010(H)


1. JOSE.K.P,AGED 56 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ANTHIKKAD

4. ALPHONSA,W/O.K.P.JOSE,KURUTHUKULANGARA

5. JEROME JOSEPH,S/O.K.P.JOSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SANTHOSH  (PODUVAL)

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :05/03/2010

 O R D E R
                          K. M. JOSEPH &
                  M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  W.P.(C).No. 2274 of 2010 H
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
             Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010

                             JUDGMENT

Joseph, J.

The petitioner seeks protection for his life. 4th respondent

is the wife and 5th respondent is the son of the petitioner.

2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The 5th

respondent, from his college days, started misbehaving and

showing lack of respect to the 4th respondent and the petitioner.

Realising that the 4th respondent is not able to bring up the 5th

respondent properly, he returned from Gulf. 4th respondent used

to give money to the 5th respondent as and when demanded. The

4th respondent was having illicit relationship with another person.

Knowing this, the 5th respondent has been blackmailing the 4th

respondent. The 5th respondent exerted pressure on the 4th

W.P.(C).No. 2274 of 2010

2

respondent to file petition under the Domestic Violence Act against

the petitioner. Ext.P1 is the petition filed before the District Probation

Officer. Ext.P2 is the petition under Section 12 of the Domestic

Violence Act. Petitioner filed Ext.P3. It is stated that respondents 4

and 5 subjected the petitioner to cruelty. He filed Ext.P4 complaint

before the first respondent. It is stated that respondents 4 and 5

trespassed into the flour mill, where the petitioner is residing and

caused damage to the articles kept inside the flour mill. The petitioner

filed Ext.P5 complaint before the second respondent and Ext.P6

representation before the first respondent.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader. Though served, there is no appearance for

respondents 4 and 5.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks protection for the

petitioner to reside in his house. Learned Government Pleader submits

that there are disputes between the parties. He would also submit that

W.P.(C).No. 2274 of 2010

3

the petitioner has some psychological problems, as is discernible from

Ext.P2. We think that the petitioner should be relegated to appropriate

competent forum.

5. Accordingly we dispose of this Writ Petition relegating the

petitioner to pursue his remedy before appropriate forum/court. We

make it clear that the police will not interfere in the disputes between

the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 unless there is a direction

given by a Court or a Forum or such interference is necessary in

connection with the investigation of a cognizable offence.

(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge

tm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *