IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37552 of 2009(L)
1. SOJAN IMMANUEL, AGED 35, S/O.IMMANUEL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE S.I. OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. JOHNSON THOMAS, AGED 42,
3. ROY MOHANAN, AGED 40,
4. N.G.SETHUMADHAVAN, AGED 44,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU
For Respondent :SRI.ABRAHAM JOHN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :24/02/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P(C). NO. 37552 OF 2009 L
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th February, 2010
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
Petitioner seeks police protection. Briefly put, the case of
the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioner is the General Manager of a three star bar
attached hotel located near Irumpanam junction at Tripunithura.
It is stated that about fifty persons are now regularly working in
the hotel. On 11.11.2009, the dead body of a person by name
Roy, was found outside the hotel compound. The first
respondent after completing all legal formalities, obtained the
post-mortem certificate from the Doctor which says that the
death of Roy was the result of cardiac arrest. After a few days,
certain people under the leadership of respondents 2 to 4
approached the petitioner and demanded compensation for the
death of Roy, saying that the death of Roy was a homicide and
the hotel people are responsible for the murder. Petitioner has
WPC.37552/09 L 2
denied the same. They threatened the petitioner that they will
start agitation in front of the hotel. They also conducted a press
meeting. Ext.P1 is the photo copy of the press report. It is
stated that they have conducted dharna on 20.12.2009.
2. A Counter Affidavit is filed by respondents 2 to 4.
Therein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows:
On 10.11.2009, a person by name Roy, who is a native of
Thiruvankulam Panchayat went to the hotel in which the
petitioner is the Manager, along with his friends. They
consumed liquor from the bar and finally when the bill was
given, the money which they had, was found insufficient.
Hence Roy remained in the hotel and the other persons went out
to bring money for payment of the bill amount. There was a
quarrel and Roy attempted to run out of the hotel. It is further
alleged that Roy was manhandled and he sustained bodily
injuries and he succumbed.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing for the party respondents as also the
learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the party
WPC.37552/09 L 3
respondents submits that under the cover of the interim order,
the investigation into the circumstances leading to the death of
Roy is being held up. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is willing to co-operate with the investigation.
4. While respondents 2 to 4 may agitate, it cannot block
the ingress and egress of the management and the staff or the
customers. Accordingly, we make the interim order dated
23.12.2009 absolute. However, we make it crystal clear that this
Judgment shall not be used as a reason to stop the investigation
going on into the death of Roy.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
Sd/=
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge