Kv Maimoona vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 01, 2024

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1319934

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1319934
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran
Decided On: Apr 01, 2024
Case Number: WP(C)/12658/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kv Maimoona

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....is implicated as an accused in crime no.71/2023 registered by the said police officer. they say that they have preferred exts.p3 and p4 representations before respondents 2 and 3 and pray that the same be directed to be taken up and disposed of, thus leading to necessary action against the 5th respondent and other ‘delinquent’ police officers, within a time frame to be fixed by this court.2. pertinently, in response to the afore submissions ofsri.m.g.sreejith - learned counsel for the petitioners, sri.p.m.shameer - learned government pleader, submitted that the 2nd respondent is not aware of any of the allegations made by the petitioners against the 5th respondent, nor does he have any jurisdiction against the said officer. he argued that, as far as respondents 3 to 5 are concerned, they are also beyond the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent, while the 6 th respondent - station house officer, payyannur, has not intervened in any manner, nor committed any action, which should have arrayed him in a writ petition of this nature. he thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.3. there is force in the afore submissions of the learnedgovernment pleader because, even going by the pleadings on record, the petitioners specifically allege that the 5 th respondent and his men demanded rs.1 lakhs from them and that this was as favour of their son being saved from the criminal case in which he is implicated. obviously, if the petitioners are right making such assertions, their remedy is to move appropriately against the said officer, as also his controlling authorities, over whom this court has no jurisdiction.4. that said, as i have already indited above, it is thespecific assertion of the learned government pleader that the petitioners are not needed in any case as far as respondents 2 and 6 are concerned and that they are not required in investigation of any such. in the afore circumstances, leaving full liberty to the petitioners to invoke any remedy that they.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 12658 OF 2024 PETITIONERS: 1 KV MAIMOONA, AGED 63 YEARS, W/O. MUHAMMADALI KUTTYAM PEEDIKA VALAPPIL KANNUR DISTRICT, VADAKKUMADRAMANTHALI, KERALA, PIN - 670308 2 MUHAMMADALI CM, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. MOOSA, KUTTYAM PEEDIKA VALAPPIL KANNUR DISTRICT, VADAKKUMADRAMANTHALI, KERALA, PIN - 670308 3 JABEENA KV, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.JABBAR,KUTTYAM PEEDIKA VALAPPIL KANNUR DISTRICT, VADAKKUMADRA- MANTHALI, KERALA, PIN - 670308 BY ADVS. M.G.SREEJITH VIDYAJITH M. BINCY JOSE ROJIN DEVASSY RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010 3 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU NO.1, KAMARAJ SALAI, MAHILAPUR, CITY-CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 600004 4 THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAMADANAPURAM, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, PIN - 627002
5 THE SHO, MOONDRADAIPPU POLICE STATION TIRUNELVELI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 627152 6 THE SHO, PAYANNUR, KANNUR, PAYYANUR, KERALA, PIN - 670307 BY ADV SRI P.M.SHAMEER-GP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioners allege that the 5th respondent - Station House Officer of the Moondradaippu Police Station, Tamil Nadu, is attempting to extort money from them, in lieu of not taking further action against their son, who, they concede, is implicated as an accused in Crime No.71/2023 registered by the said Police Officer. They say that they have preferred Exts.P3 and P4 representations before respondents 2 and 3 and pray that the same be directed to be taken up and disposed of, thus leading to necessary action against the 5th respondent and other ‘delinquent’ Police Officers, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Pertinently, in response to the afore submissions of

Sri.M.G.Sreejith - learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.P.M.Shameer - learned Government Pleader, submitted that the 2nd respondent is not aware of any of the allegations made by the petitioners against the 5th respondent, nor does he have any jurisdiction against the said officer. He argued that, as far as respondents 3 to 5 are concerned, they are also beyond the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent, while the 6 th respondent - Station House Officer, Payyannur, has not intervened in any manner, nor committed any action, which should have arrayed him in a Writ Petition of this nature. He thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

3. There is force in the afore submissions of the learned

Government Pleader because, even going by the pleadings on record, the petitioners specifically allege that the 5 th respondent and his men demanded Rs.1 Lakhs from them and that this was as favour of their son being saved from the criminal case in which he is implicated. Obviously, if the petitioners are right making such assertions, their remedy is to move appropriately against the said officer, as also his controlling authorities, over whom this Court has no jurisdiction.

4. That said, as I have already indited above, it is the

specific assertion of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioners are not needed in any case as far as respondents 2 and 6 are concerned and that they are not required in investigation of any such. In the afore circumstances, leaving full liberty to the petitioners to invoke any remedy that they may have against the 5 th respondent, I close this Writ Petition; however, leaving open all rival contentions. Sd/- RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12658/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.71/2023 OF MOONDRADAIPPU POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF BAIL APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT, TIRUNELVELI Exhibit -P3 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23-03-2024 Exhibit -P4 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23-03-2024 Exhibit -P5 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 23-04-2024 Exhibit -P6 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 23-04-2024

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2024 Same Parties Kv Maimoona vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran