B.Mohammed Khan Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1016934
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnJul-23-2013
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
AppellantB.Mohammed Khan
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice s.siri jagan & the honourable mr. justice k.ramakrishnan tuesday, the 23rd day of july 2013 1st sravana, 1935 wp(c).no. 17670 of 2013 (g) ---------------------------- petitioners : ----------- b.mohammed khan @ b.m.khan, aged 7 years s/o.bava sahib,chief promoter & executive chairman palm shore hotels private limited, light house road vizhinjam, thiruvananthapuram. by advs.sri.sasthamangalam s. ajithkumar sri.v.s.thoshin respondents : ---------- 1. the police commissioner thiruvananthapuram city office of the police commissioner, vazhuthacaud thiruvananthapuram, pin-695001.2. the circle inspector of police poonthura, office of the circle inspector of police poonthura, thiruvananthapuram, pin-695026.3. beena,aged 4 years,d/o.thomas, t.c.no.46/570(3), manikamvilakom poonthura post, thiruvananthapuram, pin-695026. r1 & r2 by government pleader sri.mohammed shah this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on 23-07-2013, the court on the same day delivered the following: bp wp(c).no. 17670 of 2013 (g) ---------------------------- appendix petitioner(s)' exhibits ----------------------- exhibit p1 : true copy of the petition filed by the petitioner before the asst.commr. of police, valiyathura dt.28-3-13 for police protection. exhibit p2 : true copy of the advocate notice sent by the advocate of r4 dt.3-5-13. exhibit p3 : true copy of the reply notice dt.21-5-13 sent by the advocate of the petitioner to the advocate of r4. exhibit p4 : true copy of the op 775/13 on the file of the family court, thiruvananthapuram dt.15-5-13 filed by r4 against the petitioner. respondent(s)' exhibits : nil. ----------------------- //true copy// p.a. to judge bp s.siri jagan & k.ramakrishnan, jj.----------------------------------------------------------------- w.p.(c).no.17670 of 2013 ------------------------------------------------------------------ dated this the 23rd day of july, 2013 judgment s. siri jagan, j.the petitioner and the third respondent were man and wife once. the petitioner claims that he has divorced the 3rd respondent by pronouncing talaq on 28.03.2013. the validity of the talaq is disputed by the 3rd respondent insofar as, it was in her absence. the 3rd respondent has now demanded value of gold ornaments, cost of motor car and other amounts from the petitioner. petitioner's complaint in this writ petition is that, at the instance of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent is harassing the petitioner to force him to agree to the claims of the 3rd respondent, and the petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: i) to pass a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction commanding the respondents 1 & 2 not to harass the petitioners with respect to the aforesaid matter. ii) to pass an order directing the 3rd respondent to pursue her remedy before the appropriate family court and resolve her grievance if any. iii) to pass such other direction, order or writ that may be found fit, just and equitable in the circumstances of the case and w.p.(c).no.17670 o”2. iv) to realise the cost of the proceedings from the respondents herein.2. the learned government pleader on instructions from the 2nd respondent submits that, the 2nd respondent has not harassed the petitioner nor has he any intention to do so. it is submitted that a complaint has been received from the 3rd respondent, which prima facie discloses an offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner. in order to enquire into the same, the petitioner was asked to come to the police station, but he did not. apart form that, the 2nd respondent has not in any way harassed the petitioner, is the contention of the learned government pleader. he also submits that the 2nd respondent has no intention to interfere with the matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent.3. the counsel for the petitioner would contend that he did not go to the police station for fear that at the instance of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent would harass the petitioner.4. after hearing both sides, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:1. the statement of the government pleader that w.p.(c).no.17670 o”3. the 2nd respondent has no intention to harass the petitioner and has no intention to interfere with the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is recorded.2. if the 2nd respondent wants the presence of the petitioner for enquiring into any complaint, disclosing a criminal offence, filed by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent shall issue a notice under section 160 of the criminal procedure code to the petitioner. sd/- s. siri jagan, judge sd/- k. ramakrishnan, judge // true copy // p.a. to judge ss
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2013 1ST SRAVANA, 1935 WP(C).No. 17670 of 2013 (G) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS : ----------- B.MOHAMMED KHAN @ B.M.KHAN, AGED 7 YEARS S/O.BAVA SAHIB,CHIEF PROMOTER & EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN PALM SHORE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, LIGHT HOUSE ROAD VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.V.S.THOSHIN RESPONDENTS : ---------- 1. THE POLICE COMMISSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER, VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE POONTHURA, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695026.

3. BEENA,AGED 4 YEARS,D/O.THOMAS, T.C.NO.46/570(3), MANIKAMVILAKOM POONTHURA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695026. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BP WP(C).No. 17670 of 2013 (G) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASST.COMMR. OF POLICE, VALIYATHURA DT.28-3-13 FOR POLICE PROTECTION. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE NOTICE SENT BY THE ADVOCATE OF R4 DT.3-5-13. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DT.21-5-13 SENT BY THE ADVOCATE OF THE PETITIONER TO THE ADVOCATE OF R4. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE OP 775/13 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT.15-5-13 FILED BY R4 AGAINST THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE BP S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.17670 of 2013 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2013 JUDGMENT

S. Siri Jagan, J.

The petitioner and the third respondent were man and wife once. The petitioner claims that he has divorced the 3rd respondent by pronouncing Talaq on 28.03.2013. The validity of the Talaq is disputed by the 3rd respondent insofar as, it was in her absence. The 3rd respondent has now demanded value of gold ornaments, cost of motor car and other amounts from the petitioner. Petitioner's complaint in this writ petition is that, at the instance of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent is harassing the petitioner to force him to agree to the claims of the 3rd respondent, and the petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: i) To pass a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction commanding the respondents 1 & 2 not to harass the petitioners with respect to the aforesaid matter. ii) To pass an order directing the 3rd respondent to pursue her remedy before the appropriate family court and resolve her grievance if any. iii) To pass such other direction, order or writ that may be found fit, just and equitable in the circumstances of the case and W.P.(C).No.17670 o”

2. iv) To realise the cost of the proceedings from the respondents herein.

2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions from the 2nd respondent submits that, the 2nd respondent has not harassed the petitioner nor has he any intention to do so. It is submitted that a complaint has been received from the 3rd respondent, which prima facie discloses an offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner. In order to enquire into the same, the petitioner was asked to come to the police station, but he did not. Apart form that, the 2nd respondent has not in any way harassed the petitioner, is the contention of the learned Government Pleader. He also submits that the 2nd respondent has no intention to interfere with the matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent.

3. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that he did not go to the police station for fear that at the instance of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent would harass the petitioner.

4. After hearing both sides, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

1. The statement of the Government Pleader that W.P.(C).No.17670 o”

3. the 2nd respondent has no intention to harass the petitioner and has no intention to interfere with the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is recorded.

2. If the 2nd respondent wants the presence of the petitioner for enquiring into any complaint, disclosing a criminal offence, filed by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent shall issue a notice under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the petitioner. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. To Judge ss