Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 41676 OF 2022 PETITIONER: EDATHODI RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 72 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION, RESIDING AT "RESHMA", BC ROAD,EDATHODI, BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE - 670315. BY ADVS. M.K.SUMOD ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) VIDYA M.K. RESPONDENTS: 1 SHAJITH.A AGED 45 YEARS S/O.SASIDHARAN, RESIDING AT "ETTIYADATH HOUSE",, KIZHAKUMPADAM,BEYPORE PO, KOZHIKODE - 670315. 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE BEYPORE POLICE STATION, BEYPORE PO, KOZHIKODE - 670315. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KOZHIKODE CITY, PALAYAM ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673004. 4 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695010 5 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV S V.VINAY M.S.ANEER SARATH K.P. PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH ANILKUMAR C.R. E.C.BINEESH GP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2023 The petitioner, who is a senior Advocate in Kozhikode, is before this Court seeking to direct the 3 rd respondent to extend police protection to the petitioner's life from the apprehended threat of the 1st respondent.
2. The petitioner states that he is a lawyer practicing since
the year 1988. According to the petitioner, the 1 st respondent is a notorious criminal of Beypore and is involved in unlawful procuring, transporting and sale of sand from Beypore river. The petitioner states that on a misconception that the petitioner is behind the cases registered against the 1 st respondent, the 1st respondent is causing threat to the petitioner.
3. A number of crimes have been registered against the
1st respondent. Nevertheless, the 1st respondent continues to cause threat to the life of the petitioner. Unless this Court directs respondents 2 and 3 to extend sufficient police protection to the petitioner, the life of the petitioner is in danger, contends the petitioner.
4. Counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that there is
no threat from the 1st respondent to the petitioner. The 1st respondent was a client of the petitioner in a large number of cases. Due to some difference of opinion, the 1 st respondent stopped availing professional assistance of the petitioner and engaged another lawyer for his defence. This has infuriated the petitioner and ever since the petitioner is concocting frivolous and false criminal complaints against the 1st respondent. Even Section 107 proceedings have been initiated against him. The 1 st respondent submits that he has no intention whatsoever to cause any physical or other threat or harm to the petitioner or to abuse him through telephone.
5. Government Pleader representing respondents 3 to 5
submitted that when complaints were received against the 1st respondent, FIRs were launched and proceedings were initiated. The 1st respondent is now under judicial custody in connection with certain criminal offences. If there is any threat to the petitioner which comes to the knowledge of respondents 2 to 4, they will be extending necessary protection.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 2 to 5.
7. The petitioner is a lawyer practicing in Kozhikode for
long years. The 1st respondent was earlier his client. It appears that there are differences of opinion between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. The petitioner states that he is being under grave threat from the 1st respondent, who is a very powerful man. The 1st respondent, on the other hand, would submit that he is only an ordinary litigant, who has been implicated in crimes due to the complaints made by the petitioner. The 1st respondent reiterates that he has no intention to cause any physical or other threat to the petitioner.
8. In view of the stand taken by the 1 st respondent as
indicated above, this Court is of the view that no mandatory directions are required at this stage. However, if the petitioner brings to the notice of the 2 nd respondent any further threat from the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41676/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INVITATION OF THE PROGRAM Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE IN MC 261/22 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. POLICE STATION Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.7.2013 BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR, BEYPORE POLICE STATION Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 192/2013 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY A LADY LAWYER CUM WARD MEMBER SMT.C.K.ZEENATH DATED 17.12.2022 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED UNDER CRIME NO. 488/2022 DATED 13.12.2022 OF THE BEYPORE POLICE STATION Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED UNDER CRIME NO. 489/2022 DATED 13/12/2022 OF THE BEYPORE POLICE Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14.12.2022 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.12.2022 Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.12.2022 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 25/2023 DATED 14.1.2023 OF BEYPORE POLICE STATION EXHIBIT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 27/2023 OF BEYPORE POLICE STATION DATED 15.1.2023 EXHIBIT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 17.1.2023