Shahida v. Director General Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/19TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 7766 of 2013 (U) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
------------ SHAHIDA, AGED 28 YEARS D/O.RABIA, ARAFA MANZIL, KALLARA PALLIMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 608. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S):
-------------
1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 608.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 020.
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 608.
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANGOD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 609.
5. ZAKEER HUSSAIN, S/O.KOYATTI, NASSARIYA NIVAS, THULAMUTTAM PARAMBU MANTHOTTAM DESOM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 028.
R5 BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SYAMKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 7766 of 2013 (U) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 12.03.2013.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 12.03.2013.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON, KERALA WOMEN'S COMMISSION, DATED 12.03.2013.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 16.03.2013.
ASHOK BHUSHAN , Ag. CJ, & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
....................................................... W.P. C. No. 7766 of 2013 - U ....................................................... Dated this the 9th day of January, 2015
JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By this Writ Petition, petitioner has prayed for a direction to the 4th respondent to grant sufficient protection to the life of the petitioner from 5th respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submits that the 5th respondent is not causing any obstruction or threat to the life of the petitioner, who was married to the 5th respondent, and is now living with some other person. Since there is no threat or obstruction on the part of the 5th respondent, there is no need to issue any direction for police protection. Hence, this Writ Petition is closed. Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN , Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE ani/