IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 25295 of 2010(J) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RYHANA R.KAZI,AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN KAZI,"ANUGRAHA", VIDYANAGAR(P.O),NEAR TAGORE COLLEGE, KASARAGOD TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGOD CIRCLE OFFICE,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. MOHAMMED KAVUGOLI,M.P.P.IX/405, (P.O)KUDLU,KASARAGOD,PIN-671 124, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. ABDUL RAHIMAN.N.A., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.LATE VADAKEKARA ABDULLA, BEVINJE, MUNDANGALAM HOUSE, THEKKIL FERRY, PO. CHENGALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. C.ASHARAF, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.LATE C.ABDULLA, BERKA HOUSE, BERKA, CHENGALA (PO), KASARAGOD DISTRICT. Kss ..2/- ..2.... WPC.NO.5295/2010 J 7. FOUMINA, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.C.ASHARAF, BERKA HOUSE, BERKA, CHENGALA (PO), KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 8. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, HI-TECH CRIME ENQUIRY CELL, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 & R8 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M.CHARISMA R4 BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.SOHAN, SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. R5 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.25295/2010 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ADMISSION CERTIFICATE OF CIVIL SERVICE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION 2010. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 22/10/2009 FILED BEFORE THE STATE WOMEN'S COMMISSION THROUGH HER MOTHER. P3: NEWS ITEMS PUBLISHED IN INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY DTD. 12/07/2010. P3(A): NEWS ITEMS PUBLISHED IN DESHABHIMANI. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16/07/2010 ALONG WITH ITS COVER. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/07/2010 ALONG WITH ITS COVER. P5(A): COPY OF THE LETTER TD. 22/07/10 ALONG WITH ITS COVER. P6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF 161 STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER. P8: COPY OF THE POLICE REPORT DTD. 13/08/2010 AND THE ORDER NO. B1.10389/10 DTD. 13/08/2010. P9: TRUE OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.875 OF 2010 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION. P10: COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P10(A):COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P11: COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 17/08/2010. P12: COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 16/09/2010. P12(A):COPY OF THE ENVELOP OF EXT.P12 LETTER. P12(B):COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 16/09/2010. P13: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BEFORE THE 8TH RESPONDENT. P14: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 23/09/2010 LODGED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. P15: COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 22/10/2010. Kss ..2/- ..2... WPC.NO.25295/2010 J P15(A):COPY OF THE COVER OF EXT.P15 LETTER. P16: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.22/10/10 OF THE PETITIONER LODGED BEFORE THE DY.S.P., KASARAGOD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R6(A): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND HER MOTHER ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD DTD. 29/09/2010. R6(B): COPY OF THE ORDER IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.6416/2010 DTD., 20/10/2010. R6(C): COPY OF THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETTIONER DTD. 11/08/2006. R6(D): COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DTD. 09/10/2007. R6(E): COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 05/10/2010. R6(F): COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN MADHYAMAM DAILY DTD. 05/10/2010. R6(G): COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN THEJAS DAILY DTD.06/10/2010. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.25295 of 2010-J ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to afford police protection to her against culpable, contumacious and violent acts on the part of respondents 4 to 7. When the petition was originally filed, only the 4th respondent was arrayed as the respondent. Subsequently, party respondents 5 to 7 and additional 8th respondent were arrayed as parties. 2. The short grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 4 to 7, infuriated by her conduct of not wearing dress of their choice and claiming to be aggrieved by the conduct of the respondents not conforming to the dress code which young Muslim women are expected to follow, are indulging in W.P.(C) No.25295 of 2010 -: 2 :- contumacious and violent conduct against her. The 4th respondent had allegedly written a threatening letter to her. Respondents 5 to 7 are also indulging in the conduct contemning the acts of the petitioner not following the dress code which they want the petitioner to follow. 3. The 4th respondent has entered appearance. According to the 4th respondent, though he had written the letter in question i.e., Ext.P4, certain words, which were not there when he sent the same to the petitioner, have been added therein with sinister motive. He had, by the said letter, only intended to advise the petitioner and there was no intention, in any manner, to threaten or vex the petitioner. Respondents 5 and 7 have appeared through counsel. They contend that they did not indulge in any conduct against the petitioner. 4. A Bench of this Court which dealt with the matter before impleadment of respondents 5 to 7 had passed the following order on 12/8/10: “There will be an interim order directing respondents 1 to 3 to provide sufficient police protection to the lives of the petitioner, parents of the petitioner and her five siblings as against any threat from the 4th respondent and his men for three weeks.” W.P.(C) No.25295 of 2010 -: 3 :- The same Bench on 18/8/10 after impleadment of respondents 5 to 7 had passed the following interim order also: “There will be an interim order directing respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner, petitioner's parents, petitioner's 5 siblings as against any threat from respondents 5 to 7 and their men for a period of two weeks.” These orders have been extended from time to time. They remain in force even now. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The learned counsel for the petitioner only prays that the interim orders referred above may be made absolute and the proceedings may be closed. Respondents 4 and 5 to 7 through their counsel submit that the apprehension of the petitioner is unjustified and, in these circumstances, they do not deserve to suffer any orders against them. 6. We do not think it necessary to embark on a more detailed and elaborate discussion. Ext.P4 letter admittedly has been written by the 4th respondent against the petitioner. We find absolutely no reason to assume that there has been any subsequent interpolations made in that document. We do not W.P.(C) No.25295 of 2010 -: 4 :- intend to express any final opinion on that question also. Suffice it to say that even without those words which have allegedly been introduced subsequently, the apprehension of the petitioner against the 4th respondent does appear to be absolutely justified. Similarly, notwithstanding the stout denial of respondents 5 to 7, we are of the opinion that the apprehension of the petitioner of untoward acts on the part of respondents 5 to 7 against her does also appear to be reasonable. We are satisfied that as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner the interim orders can be made absolute. 7. The learned Government Pleader, on behalf of the police officers i.e, respondents 1 to 3 accepts and agrees that the said interim orders can now be made absolute. 8. In the result: (a) This writ petition is allowed. (b) The interim orders dated 12/8/10 and 18/8/10 extracted above are made absolute. R. BASANT (Judge) K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/