Jameela Subramanian v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 10262 of 2013 (G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
---------------------- JAMEELA SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.LATE SUBRAMANIAN, SHANMUGHAPURAM, KOREYA ROAD, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH SRI. M.V.SABU RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM-682035.
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-682018.
4. SREEHARI, AGED 26 YEARS, FREEDOM LANE, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, J.M.FLAT, KOCHI - 682 017.
5. JITHIN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.LATE SUBRAMANIAN, FREEDOM LANE, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, J.M.FLAT, KOCHI - 682 017.
R1-3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ
WP(C).No. 10262 of 2013 (G) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1.
TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 13.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WOMEN CELL, KOCHI CITY.
EXHIBIT P2.
TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 02.04.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3.
TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 02.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.
/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ
ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.10262 of 2013 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November 2015
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for police protection.
2.
It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the issue, which had arisen between the parties is with reference to a family dispute.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had relinquished vakalath.
4.
After perusing the averments made in the writ petition and after having heard the learned Government Pleader, we do not think that any direction as sought for can be granted in this writ petition as the issue involved is with reference to enjoyment of property.
Hence, we close the writ petition.
Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE J UDGE Jvt/30.11.2015.