Raseena Mundodan v. Mundodan Mohammed
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 22ND DAY OF MAY 2015/1ST JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 13858 of 2015 (F) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :- ------------------
1. RASEENA MUNDODAN, W/O HAMZA,
2. BABY RASEEFA, D/O HAMZA,
3. ATHIF, S/O HAMZA, (ALL RESIDING AT KARIMBANAKKAL HOUSE NEAR BSNL OFFICE, CHAKKALAKUTHU, NILAMBUR PO MALAPPURAM DISTRICT) BY ADVS.SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.M.S.MOHAMMED ANSARY SRI.K.C.ANTONY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S) :- ------------------
1. MUNDODAN MOHAMMED, S/O UNNI MOHAMMED, MUNDODAN HOUSE, ARECODE-673 639, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NILAMBUR, NILAMBUR P.O., - 679 329, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF MALAPPURAM MALAPPURAM P.O.-676 505, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN SRI.J.RAMKUMAR R2 & R3 BY STATE ATTORNEY SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 13858 of 2015 (F) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :- --------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.4.2015 FILED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EGLISH TRANSLATION.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :- NIL -------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
---------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13858 of 2015 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May 2015
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J.
Petitioners have approached this Court seeking police protection. It is alleged that the first respondent is the brother of the first petitioner and there had been financial transaction between the first petitioner's husband and first respondent. In the mean time, the first respondent had come to the residence of the petitioners and had threatened the petitioners with dire consequences. Though a complaint was filed before the police, no action has been taken in the matter.
2.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent inter alia stating that he had gone to the petitioners' residence along with his brothers and sisters. He has not threatened the petitioners in any manner. According to him, the first petitioner's husband had taken a loan from him, which was not returned and the purpose of going to the petitioners' residence was only to demand the amount.
3.
Learned State Attorney on instructions would submit that on receipt of the complaint, the parties were summoned to
W.P.(C) No.13858 of 2015 -: 2 :- the police station and they were asked not to indulge in any nuisance to each other.
4.
Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, we do not think it necessary to pass any further direction in the matter. 5.
Learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent does not intend to go to the residence of the petitioners as well.
Taking on record the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is closed.
Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE J UDGE Jvt