IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 1429 of 2008(S)
1. SAFIYA BEEVI, W/O.LATE MUHAMMAD HANEEFA,
... Petitioner
2. M.MUHAMMAD RAFI, S/O.LATE MUHAMMAD
Vs
1. SRI.V.JAYACHANDRAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :02/02/2009
O R D E R
K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ.
================================
Cont. Case (C) No. 1429 of 2008
=====================
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioners herein were the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.34584 of
2007. They approached this Court alleging that their lives are in danger
because of the high-handed and criminals action of respondents 4 to 7.
Since the said respondents did not appear, this Court issued the
following order in the Writ Petition:
“Though, notice was served on respondents 4 to 7,
no one appeared for them. Having regard to the nature of
the allegations, if there is any threat to the life of the
petitioners, they may inform the 3rd respondent. In that
event, the said respondent shall take necessary action in
accordance with law to protect the life of the petitioners.”
Alleging that respondents 4 to 7 therein threatened and attempted to
attack the second petitioner, he filed Annexure A3 representation before
the Sub Inspector of Police. It was followed by other representations
before the superior officers. The first petitioner preferred Annexure A6
COC 1429/08 -: 2 :-
representation before the Sub Inspector of Police pointing out the
criminal actions on the part of respondents 4 to 7 and praying to give
necessary protection. Alleging that the police did not take any action and
thereby the Sub Inspector of Police has wilfully disobeyed the direction of
this Court, the contempt application was filed.
2. The Sub Inspector of Police has filed a counter affidavit denying
the allegation of the petitioners. In the said affidavit he has stated as
follows:
“It is humbly submitted that this respondent have
utmost respect towards the orders and directions issued by
this Honourable Court and this respondent shall faithfully
comply with the directions of this Honourable Court.
Annexure A2 judgment was received by this respondent on
14.7.2008. Thereafter in strict compliance of the directions
contained in the judgment this respondent have taken
steps to afford protection to the petitioner. It is humbly
submitted that no complaints from the part of the
petitioners were received by the police till 23.8.2008. On
23.8.2008 the 2nd petitioner along with one Irshad attacked
the fourth respondent in the writ petition causing injuries
to the head and contusion all over the body. A crime has
been registered against the 2nd petitioner herein and his
nephew as Crime No.224/08 u/s 341, 324, 294B, 308 read
with section 34 IPC. Now the 2nd petitioner herein and his
nephew are absconding. It is humbly submitted that under
the guise of Annexure A2 judgment the 2nd petitioner
herein and his nephew have attacked the fourth respondent
in the writ petition. It is also brought to the notice of this
COC 1429/08 -: 3 :-
Honourable Court that the police have interfered in the
matter timely and firmly, faithfully complying with the
directions of this Honourable Court. There is no threat to
the life of the petitioners. The Contempt of Court Case
itself is filed subsequent to the registering of the crime
against the 2nd petitioner and his nephew.
3. The allegations made by the petitioner that they
were not given protection and the police have not acted on
their complaints are absolutely false. I further undertake
that the orders passed by this Honourable Court will be
faithfully complied with by this respondent in its letter and
spirit. In the above circumstances the above Contempt of
Court Case may be dismissed.”
The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit denying the averments in the
counter affidavit and also reiterating their stand taken in the contempt
application.
3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. Going
by the affidavit of the respondent, it is seen that on the strength of the
orders passed by this Court, the second petitioner has started to attack
his neighbours and therefore the police has to register a case against
him. The petitioners would point out that the crime has been registered
based on false allegations and the accused have been granted bail, by
the Sessions Court. Having regard to the allegations and counter
allegations, we feel that it is not expedient or necessary to proceed with
the contempt proceedings against the respondent. The petitioners may
invoke the++ remedies available to them before the competent criminal
COC 1429/08 -: 4 :-
and civil courts to redress their grievances. Further, we notice the
undertaking in the affidavit of the respondent that he will comply with
the direction of this Court in its letter and spirit.
In the result, the contempt application is closed.
K.Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
ess 3/2