Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE MONDAY, THE28H DAY OF OCTOBER20136TH KARTHIKA, 1935 Con.Case(C).No. 772 of 2013 (S) --------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN WP(C) 19385/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA . ......... PETITIONER(S)/WRIT PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------------- SIMON GEORGE, PALAMOOTIL, VELLORA, KARIPPAL(PO)KANNUR. BY ADVS.SRI.V.PREMCHAND SRI.V.TEKCHAND RESPONDENT(S)/2ND RESPONDENT : ------------------------------------------------------------ SURESHAN, AGED50YEARS S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINGOME POLICE STATION PERINGOME, KANNUR, PIN-670354. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.A.MUHAMMED SHAH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2810-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss COC NO. 772/2013 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A1:- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DTD. 20.9.2012 IN WPC. 19385-2012. A2:- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DTD. 1.1.2013. A3:- COPY OF THE ACCIDENT REGISTER CUM WOUND CERTIFICATE DTD. 10.5.2013. A4:- COPY OF HEOUTPATIENT RECORD DTD. 10.5.2013 . A5:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH REVEALING ATHE PETITIONER LYING IN THE HOSPITAL AFTER THE SURGERY. A6:- COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DTD. 11.5.2013. A7:- COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 14.5.2013 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss Manjula Chellur, C.J.
& A.M. Shaffique, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 772 OF2013- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of October, 2013 JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, C.J.
The petitioner has come before us complaining willful disobedience of the directions of the Bench in WP(C) No.19385 of 2012. The direction of the Division Bench is at paragraph 6 which reads as under: "6. We have already passed an interim order directing police protection. We dispose of the Writ Petition as follows: If there is any complaint of any threat to the life of the petitioner or to the life of his wife and children as against respondents 3 to 12, filed before the second respondent, the second respondent will look into it and if it is found to be genuine alone, he will extend protection to the life of the petitioner and family members as against 3 to 12. We make it clear that we are not ordering protection by virtue of this judgment to their property rights involved, to enjoy any property rights. No protection will be given to enjoy the property rights on the strength of this judgment. We further make it clear that we are not pronouncing on the correctness of the allegations Contempt Case (Civil) No. 772 OF2013-:2:- made by each other and when the matter came up before any lawful forum, that lawful forum will consider the lis untrammelled by anything contained in this judgment." 2. According to the complainant, subsequent to the judgment in question, copy of the judgment along with a complaint was served on the earlier Sub Inspector of Police and when no action was taken, a complaint was made to the District Police Chief, Kannur which is acknowledged by receipt dated 01.01.2013. Subsequently, on 10.05.2013 at about 7 p.m. when the complainant was returning to his home from Perumbadavu town, respondents 3 to 9 along with others attacked him in front of a shop belonging to one Thankachan. As a result, he sustained serious injuries and was admitted to hospital. So far this incident is concerned, already crime came to be registered and FIR was issued and investigation is taken up.
3. We are not concerned with the incident as such alleged to have occurred on 10.05.2013. Whether there is any willful disobedience so far as the turn of events happened on Contempt Case (Civil) No. 772 OF2013-:3:- 10.05.2013. Judgment of the Division Bench is dated 28.09.2012. The incident has occurred on 10.05.2013. The directions issued by the Division Bench was if there is any genuineness in the complaint of the complainant, then they have to extend police protection. Apparently, immediately after the judgment, copy of the judgment alleged to have been served on the earlier Sub Inspector of Police, nothing seems to have happened till 10.05.2013, therefore, it is clear nothing happened in the year 2012 after the judgment of the Division Bench. In spite of the complaint to the District Police, given on 01.01.2013, nothing seems to have happened till May 2013. What exactly was stated in the complaint at Annexure A2, there is no material placed before us.
4. So far as the present respondent is concerned, when he took charge of the station in question, on what date a complaint and request was made to him seeking police protection is also not before us. Mere oral submission that a request was made before the present respondent and on account of laches on Contempt Case (Civil) No. 772 OF2013-:4:- his part the incident on 10.05.2013 has happened cannot be taken into consideration to conclude that prima facie there is willful disobedience on the part of the respondent herein. Accordingly, we find no good ground to keep the proceedings pending. Hence the Contempt proceedings are dropped and the Contempt Case is closed. Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice. A.M. Shaffique, Judge. ttb/28/10