ASHRAF Vs. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the seventh respondent were business partners and were running a jewellery by name "Shalimar Jewellery" at Nadapuram. The petitioner questioned the seventh respondent about some misappropriation of funds and they fell out. It is alleged that on 29.02.2016, the 10th respondent, who is the wife of the seventh respondent, called the petitioner over phone and asked him to come over to the house of the seventh respondent for discussion regarding the business transaction. When the petitioner went there, he was very severely assaulted by the party respondents and was left abandoned beside the road with hands and legs tied. Ext.P1 is the photograph showing the petitioner lying on the road. He was taken to Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode and treated there. He had sustained grievous injury as is evident from Ext.P2 wound certificate and Ext.P3 discharge summary. Fourth respondent Station House Officer of Kuttyadi Police Station registered Ext.P4 FIR. In the commotion that took place, the petitioner had bitten the sixth respondent and a crime has been registered against the petitioner also, as a counter case. Thereafter on 9.5.2016, while the petitioner was returning home with his neighbour one Sanilkumar, he was attacked by respondents 11 and 12 together with four other persons and the petitioner's face was hit with a granite stone. He sustained grievous injuries as evidenced by Ext.P5 wound certificate. Another crime was registered as evidenced by Ext.P6. Anticipatory bail application filed by respondents 5 to 9 was dismissed by the Sessions Court. Thereafter, this Court was approached for anticipatory bail and the application was partly allowed granting anticipatory bail to respondents 8 and 10 alone. Several complaints were filed thereafter by the petitioner before the Police authorities. He has approached this court seeking protection to the life of himself and his family. This Court by orders dated 24.10.2016 and 10.4.2017 directed respondents 3 to 5 to ensure the safety of the petitioner and the members of his family and to grant them adequate protection.

(2.) We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents.

(3.) Party respondents appeared and filed counter affidavit contradicting allegations made against them. It is stated that the petitioner has mental disorder and poses a threat to the persons in the locality. He has been treated in Kasturba Hospital for depression, as evidenced by Ext.R12(a) discharge summary. It is also stated that the petitioner had published defamatory matters regarding the 10th respondent and she has also filed Ext.R12(f) criminal complaint against the petitioner for defaming her. It is also stated that the petitioner is a constant nuisance to the people in the locality. Numerous complaints and mass petitions are lodged against him. He had sustained injuries in attack by a mob. He has perverted ideas and is looking for an opportunity to harm the party respondents in whatever way he can. It is also stated that the allegations leading to registration of criminal cases against them are untrue. The third respondent has also filed a counter affidavit through the learned Senior Government Pleader in which it is stated that two crimes have been registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner and those crimes are being investigated and that the petitioner and members of his family are afforded adequate protection and Police authorities are vigilant in their duty. From the documents produced on both sides, it is adequately clear that the petitioner and the party respondents are in inimical terms and serious allegations and counter allegations are made by both sides against each other. Under the circumstances, the petitioner's apprehension does not seem to be misplaced. There appears to be serious threat to the life of the petitioner, and the members of his family. In case the petitioner has mental ailment as alleged by the party respondents, there is all the more reason for him to be protected. We are, therefore, of the view that adequate protection shall be afforded to the petitioner and members of his family from respondents 6 to 13 or their men and supporters. The Police shall also ensure that the protection order is not abused and any offensive action taken by the petitioner against the respondents under the cover of the protection granted. The complaints filed by the petitioner shall be proceeded with, in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is allowed.