NASEEMA E.A v. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KASARAGODE POLICE STATION
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Going by the nature of the pleadings and prayers, this Court finds that, if the petitioner is aggrieved of any atrociousact committed by the second respondent/husband, she is havinga very effective remedy, in view of the relevant provisions oflaw, under different Forum/Fora and the…
Judgment
WPC.No. 87 of 2012 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 24/12/2011.RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ..............................................................................W.P.(C) No. 87 OF 2012 .........................................................................Dated this the 3rd January, 2012 J U D G M E N T P.R. Ramachandra Menon,J:The petitioner is before this Court, alleging lapse on thepart of the first respondent in yielding to the request forgranting police protection in respect of the atrocities committedby the second respondent, who is none other than the husbandof the petitioner.
The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner wasliving with the second respondent, but he was torturing her likeanything and ultimately she had to flee away from hermatrimonial home and take shelter in her brother's home. It wasin the said circumstances, that an application was filed before thefirst respondent seeking police protection, which however did not W.P.(C) No. 87 OF 20122yield any positive result; hence the petitioner has approachedthis Court by filing the present writ petition.
Going by the nature of the pleadings and prayers, this Court finds that, if the petitioner is aggrieved of any atrociousact committed by the second respondent/husband, she is havinga very effective remedy, in view of the relevant provisions oflaw, under different Forum/Fora and the instant writ petition isthoroughly wrong and misconceived. So also , if the police, asstated by the petitioner, is not registering a crime in respect ofthe offences if any, in tune with the relevant provisions of law, still it is open for the petitioner to approach the concernedMagistrate's Court by filing a complaint under the relevantprovisions of the Cr. P.C. In the above circumstance, we find that it is not a fit case tobe acted upon, at the hands of this Court, by ordering policeprotection; more so, when there is no specific allegation as toany failure on the part of the police either under Section 42 ofthe Kerala Police Act, 2011 or under Section 149 of the Cr.P.C.. W.P.(C) No. 87 OF 20123We find no grounds to interfere and accordingly, the writ petitionis dismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.