Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Prasanth Vs. Sub Inspector of Police

Prasanth vs Sub Inspector of Police

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 24, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1096362

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prasanth

Respondent

Sub Inspector of Police

Excerpt

.....siri jagan, j civil disputes are pending between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. the petitioners complaint in the writ petition is that, the first respondent is harassing the petitioner coercing the petitioner to settle the disputes in accordance with the terms of respondents 2 and 3. the petitioner therefore, seeks the following reliefs: i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 1st respondent not to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 and other associates; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent not to summon the petitioner except in accordance with law and section 41 a of the code of criminal procedure; and iii) to grant such other further reliefs as are necessary in the interests of justice.2. learned government pleader on instruction submits that, a complaint was received from w.p.(c). no.23112 of 2013 2 the 3rd respondent, which was enquired into and on realising that the disputes between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are purely civil disputes, the parties have been relegated to their remedies before the civil court. it is further submitted that, the first respondent has no intention to interfere with the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3. this is recorded and the writ petition is closed. sd/- s. siri jagan, judge sd/- k. ramakrishnan, judge // true copy // p.a. to judge ss

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE24H DAY OF OCTOBER20132ND KARTHIKA, 1935 WP(C).No. 23112 of 2013 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- PRASANTH R., S/O. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT DHANYA BHAVAN, B.D.NAGAR, HOUSE NO.166, VILAPPIL VILLAGE, PEYAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI SMT.INDIRA RAVEENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

2. K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN, 3A, SHYLA MANOR APARTMENT, JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

3. C.S.VINOD, S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.5C, SHYLA MANOR APARTMENT, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. R1 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2410-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.23112/2013 (L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DTD. 26/09/2013. P2: COPY OF THE CRL.M.P.NO.614 OF 2013 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 12/02/2013 WITHOUT DOCUMENTS. P3: COPY OPF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.571 OF 2013 INSTITUTED AGAINST THE DEPONENT OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT AND HIS WIFE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A): COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.95/2013 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION. R2(B): COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.111/2013 OFMUSEUM POLICE STATION. R2(C): COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD. 12/07/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE3D RESPONDENT AS THE PRESIDENT OF SHYLA MANOR APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION TO THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.23112 of 2013 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of October, 2013

JUDGMENT

S. Siri Jagan, J Civil disputes are pending between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. The petitioners complaint in the writ petition is that, the first respondent is harassing the petitioner coercing the petitioner to settle the disputes in accordance with the terms of respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner therefore, seeks the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 1st respondent not to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 and other associates; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent not to summon the petitioner except in accordance with law and Section 41 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and iii) To grant such other further reliefs as are necessary in the interests of justice.

2. Learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that, a complaint was received from W.P.(C). No.23112 of 2013 2 the 3rd respondent, which was enquired into and on realising that the disputes between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are purely civil disputes, the parties have been relegated to their remedies before the Civil court. It is further submitted that, the first respondent has no intention to interfere with the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3. This is recorded and the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial