Ibrahim Haji v. Faizal M.V.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/27TH BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 28366 of 2015 (U) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :
---------------- IBRAHIM HAJI, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA, THALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, 62/8, PUNNASSERY P.O., KAKKUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS :
-------------------
1. FAIZAL M.V., S/O.AHMED HAJI, REHMATH MANZIL, CHERUVATHOOR, KAITHAKKAL P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT - 671 121.
2. NASSER, THERUVILPARAMBU HOUSE, KALLACHI P.O., NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTICT - 673 001.
3. ASHRAF, S/O.AHMED, REHMATH MANZIL, KAITHAKKAL P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT - 671 121.
4. THE SUB INSPECTRO OF POLICE, KAKKUR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 001.
5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 001.
6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R4 TO R6 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.R. SYAM KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 28366 of 2015 (U) --------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 09.09.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. & K. Vinod Chandran, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 28366 OF 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of September, 2015
JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, C.J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. No notice is being issued to respondent Nos.1 to 3 in view of the order which is being passed.
2. The petitioner has come up with this petition seeking police protection. Petitioner's case is that his son was involved in a business with private respondents 1 to
3. The business failed and the petitioner's son is living elsewhere. But the private respondents are coming to the petitioner's residence and threatening. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P1 complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police. As the petitioner has given Ext.P1 complaint, we are of the view that it is for the police to look into the complaint
WP(C) No. 28366 of 2015 -:2:- and take such action as required. No case has been made out by the petitioner to interfere.
With the above observation, the writ petition is closed.
Ashok Bhushan, Chief Justice.
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.
ttb/18/09