Ramakrishnan vs District Police Chief

Vinod Chandran, J

The petitioner is a senior citizen, who says that he is constantly threatened by the 3rd respondent, the son in his first marriage.

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court more than 10 years back, in which an interim order was passed at Exhibit P2, which reads as under:

"Heard. The 1st respondent submits that he has no intention, whatsoever, to harm the petitioner, who is his father or his mother or his sister. This submission is recorded. If the said undertaking is violated, the petitioner may inform the 2nd respondent of the same. In that event, the 2nd respondent shall look into the same and take appropriate action, as the occasion demands".

Later, the writ petition itself was disposed of by Exhibit P3, making the interim order absolute.

Again the petitioner is before this Court, contending that for about ten years there was no problem and now the 3rd respondent has started harassing and threatening the petitioner. It is also seen that a crime was registered at the instance of the petitioner as per Exhibit P5, on 20.10.2018. In such circumstance, we do not think that there is any laxity on the part of the police. The allegation in Exhibit P5 is also that the petitioner, who was travelling in a scooter, was way-laid by the 3rd respondent and partition claimed of the properties.

We do not think that after ten years the order passed by this Court at Exhibits P2 and P3 would lose its sheen or effect and the police would not comply with the same. This Court had already directed that if at all there is any apprehension of harm to the petitioner, the police would interfere. It is for the police to enquire on any complaint preferred by the petitioner and decide as to the steps to be taken, in compliance of the earlier judgment. In such circumstances, we do not think we need pass any further order, in this writ petition. We also record the specific undertaking reiterated by the 3rd respondent, through Counsel, that he does not intend to harm the petitioner at all and there is absolutely no truth in the allegations raised in the writ petition. We, hence, dispose of the writ petition with the above observations. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1    A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 1/01/1992 IN O.P.NO.75 OF 1991 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM.

EXHIBIT P2    A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/07/2008 IN W.P(C) NO.18208 OF 2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P3    A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23/07/2008 IN W.P(C) NO.18208 OF 2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P4    A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 19/10/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 20/10/2018.

EXHIBIT P5    A TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.546 OF 2018 OF SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLIE STATION ALONG WITH MAHZAR AND STATEMENT OF WITNESSES.

EXHIBIT P6    A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 05/11/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7    A TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 05/11/2018 ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P6 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8    A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE.

EXHIBIT P9    A TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED 13.03.2019 ISSUED FROM SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION.

EXHIBIT P10  A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.