IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31715 of 2010(L)
1. M.S.MANI, KALAKAUMUDI GARDENS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE,
5. M.S.RAVI, PLAMOOD HOUSE,
6. DEEPU RAVI, PLAMOOD HOUSE,
7. DARSHAN RAVI,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :18/10/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
W.P.C.No.31715 of 2010
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of October 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.JOSEPH,J
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
i) direct the 1st to 4th respondents by issue of
a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate
writ, direction or order to forthwith afford
adequate and effective police protection for the
life of the petitioner and for free ingress and
egress to and from the registered and corporate
office of Kerala Kaumudi Private Limited,
Kaumudi Building, Petta, Thiruvananthapuram –
69 024 against any obstruction, threat or
violence from the 5th to 7th respondents, their
agents/followers.
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
3. The petitioner is the Chairman and Chief Editor of
Kerala Kaumudi News Paper owned by Kerala Kaumudi Private
Limited. The 5th respondent is the petitioner’s youngest brother
and the 6th and 7th respondents are the petitioner’s nephew and
W.P.C.No.31715 of 2010 2
children of the 5th respondent. There is a reference to orders
passed by the Company Law Board. According to the petitioner,
the petitioner along with a nominee of respondents 5 to 7 along
with another are entitled to sign the cheques of the Company in
terms of the order passed by the Company Law Board as it
stands now. About this, there is no dispute. The learned senior
counsel for the petitioner would submit that the description of
the assailant as the 7th respondent is a typographical error and it
is the 6th respondent as can be seen from the complaint. The
complaint is that while so, the 6th respondent is alleged to have
assaulted the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner is before
this Court after having filed a complaint. A counter affidavit is
filed by the 6th respondent.
4. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing for
the 6th respondent besides the learned Additional Director
General of Prosecutions. The learned ADGP would submit that
on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner, a crime has
been registered as Crime No.835/2010 under Section 323 and
506(i) I.P.C. Whatever that be, the learned senior counsel for
W.P.C.No.31715 of 2010 3
respondents 5 to 7 would submit that respondents 5 to 7 have
absolutely no intention to cause any threat to the life of the
petitioner and they will only prosecute the matter before the
proper forum.
5. We record the submission and close the writ petition.
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
W.P.C.No.31715 of 2010 4
W.P.C.No.31715 of 2010 5
K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
.No. of 200
ORDER/JUDGMENT
30/082010