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.

Suseelan Vs. Superintendent of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Rural

Suseelan vs Superintendent of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Rural

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 22, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1096413

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
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Suseelan

Respondent

Superintendent of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Rural

Excerpt

.....a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent not to harass the petitioner and further direct the 4th respondent not to summon the petitioner to the police station unnecessarily. b) declare that the 4th respondent has no jurisdiction scuttle the smooth running of the business in the petitioner club by coercive measures that too in the police station. c) grant such other relief deemed fit to this hon'ble court.2. a statement has been filed by the 4th respondent, wherein it is stated that several times criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner under the kerala gaming act and in three cases, the petitioner has pleaded guilty and was fined. it is only to ensure that the petitioner does not indulge in repetition of such crimes, the police has taken action is the contention.3. the petitioner does not dispute the fact that thrice the petitioner had been imposed with the punishment of fine for similar offences. in view of the same, we are not inclined to pass any orders in this writ petition in favour of the petitioner. accordingly, the writ w.p.(c). no.22880 of 2013 3 petition is dismissed. however, this will not stand in the way of the petitioner, seeking appropriate reliefs from the criminal court. 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 TUESDAY, THE22D DAY OF OCTOBER201330TH ASWINA, 1935 WP(C).No. 22880 of 2013 (H) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- SUSEELAN, S/O.GANGADHARAN, THE SECRETARY, NAVA BHARAT SPORTS AND ARTS CLUB, REGISTER NO.T1509OF2010 MENAMKULAM , KAZHAKKOOTTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT KUNJAYANVILAKOM VEEDU, VAIKKALATHU MURIYIL, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL SUB DIVISION, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKKOOTTAM POLICE STATION, KAZHAKKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.

4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKKOOTTAM POLICE STATION, KAZHAKKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P. MOHAMMED SHAH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2210-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 22880 of 2013 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE1T PETITIONER'S CLUB. P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER

DATED0209/2013 IN CRL.M.C. NO.1012/2013. P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

IN CRL.MC. NO. 2254 & 2867 OF2005 P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED0107/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.22880 of 2013 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2013

JUDGMENT

S. Siri Jagan, J The petitioner claims to be a registered club. The activities of the club are to indulge in sports like shuttle badminton, plying cards, carroms etc., Crimes have been registered against the petitioner under Section 7 and 8 of the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960. The petitioner has filed Criminal M.C. No.1012/2013, in which this court has granted a stay of further proceedings in Crime No.1148/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Attingal, Thiruvnanthapuram. The petitioner now submits that, in the name of proceedings under the Kerala Gaming Act, the respondents are harassing the petitioner by repeatedly summoning the petitioner to the police station. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: W.P.(C). No.22880 of 2013 2 a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent not to harass the petitioner and further direct the 4th respondent not to summon the petitioner to the police station unnecessarily. b) Declare that the 4th respondent has no jurisdiction scuttle the smooth running of the business in the petitioner club by coercive measures that too in the police station. c) Grant such other relief deemed fit to this Hon'ble court.

2. A statement has been filed by the 4th respondent, wherein it is stated that several times criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner under the Kerala Gaming Act and in three cases, the petitioner has pleaded guilty and was fined. It is only to ensure that the petitioner does not indulge in repetition of such crimes, the police has taken action is the contention.

3. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that thrice the petitioner had been imposed with the punishment of fine for similar offences. In view of the same, we are not inclined to pass any orders in this writ petition in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ W.P.(C). No.22880 of 2013 3 petition is dismissed. However, this will not stand in the way of the petitioner, seeking appropriate reliefs from the criminal court. 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