IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 932 of 2008(S)
1. UMMU BERKATH, W/O.LATE P.K.MUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
2. SAJITHA FATHIMA P.K.,
3. SERENA.P.K., D/O.LATE P.K.MUHAMMED,
4. AHAMMED KABEER.P.K.,
Vs
1. P.VIJAYAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. MUHAMMED HANEEFA.M,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :12/08/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
-------------------------------------------
Cont. Case (C)No.932 of 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 12th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
The husband of the first petitioner and father of the other
petitioners was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.6453 of 2006.
2. In the writ petition it was claimed that the private
respondents in the writ petition are his sons and they are threatening his
life and the life of his wife and the other children. This Court after
detailed consideration of the matter has disposed of the writ petition and in
that has issued certain directions. The directions are as under:
“If a complaint comes from the petitioner, his wife
and his daughter, which requires intervention, the Police
should ensure that appropriate steps are taken to maintain
peace as comes within their jurisdiction.”
` 3. After disposal of the writ petition, it appears that the
private respondents in the writ petition had threatened the life of the first
petitioner and her daughters, and, therefore, she has lodged a complaint
before the jurisdictional police authorities. After receipt of the complaint,
it is stated by the respondents in their counter affidavit, that they have
Cont. Case (C)No.932 of 2008
2
taken cognizance of the complaint and has registered a case against the
private respondents.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainants
would further submit that the action taken by the police authorities is
insufficient and, therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, there
is wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders and directions issued by
this Court.
5. We have carefully perused the orders passed by this Court
while disposing of the writ petition. The one and the only direction that
was issued by this Court was that, whenever a complaint is lodged either
by the petitioner, his wife or his children, the police authorities would take
appropriate steps to maintain peace and protect the life of the petitioner
and her children.
6. In the counter affidavit, it is stated by the police
authorities that whenever such complaints were received by them, they
have taken appropriate action which is permissible under the provisions of
the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. After going through the counter filed by the contemnors,
in our considered opinion, there is substantial compliance with the orders
and directions issued by this Court. Therefore, for the present, we need
Cont. Case (C)No.932 of 2008
3
not have to take cognizance of this complaint. Accordingly we close this
contempt petition. However, we make it clear that whenever the first
petitioner or her children files any complaint before the police authorities,
they would take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law as
directed by this Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No.6453 of 2006 dated
10th March, 2006.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
vns/dk