Kerala High Court
WA/644/2025 of BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs LATHA BALAKRISHNAN on 4 April 2025
1 WA No. 644 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WA NO. 644 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.03.2025 IN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WA NO. 644 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.03.2025 IN WP(Crl.) NO.254
OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NOS 4 AND 5:
BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
S/O MULLAPPILLY PARUKUTTY AMMA, POOKUNNAM POST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680002
K. BHARATHAN,
PROPIETOR, TOP CONSTRUCTION, SHORNUR ROAD, THRISSUR, S/O MULLAPILLY BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, POOKUNNAM POST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680002
BY ADVS.
N.L.BITTO
MITHUL T ANTO
RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NOS. 1,2,3,6:
LATHA BALAKRISHNAN
AGED 70 YEARS
W/O BALAKRISHNAN, KOLLARA HOUSE, THALIKULAM POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680569
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VADANAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680614
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
TOWN EAST POLICE STATION THRISSUR - 680001; [ADDL.R6. SUO MOTO IMPLEADED VIDE JUDGMENT DATED
24/03/2025]
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT NEEMA T V, SR. GP & SRI. VINAY VIJAY SHANKER FOR
PARTY RESP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
This intra-court appeal is preferred by the appellants/ respondents 4 and 5 in the Writ Petition, challenging the judgment dated 24.03.2025 in W.P.(Crl) No. 254 of 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge.
2. By the judgment, the learned Single Judge had disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Station House Officer, Vadanappilly Police Station, (3rd respondent) to forward Ext.P14 complaint filed by the writ petitioner to the Station House Officer, Town East Police Station, Thrissur (Addl. 6th respondent) and act upon the same in accordance with law.
3. Sri. N.L. Bitto, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, raised two contentions. According to the learned counsel, though the appellants were made a party to the proceedings, the Writ Petition was disposed of without even serving notice to the respondents. He would also submit that essentially, the matter in dispute between the parties was raked up before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum and against adverse orders passed by the District Forum and the State Forum, the appellants herein had approached the National Commission and had obtained a stay on condition that he remits the amount due to the writ petitioner within the stipulated time. The writ petitioner instead of getting the orders enforced, ventured to approach this Court and secure orders. It is submitted that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, a crime has been registered. It is urged that there was no justification in issuing directions to the Additional 6th respondent to entertain the complaint.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, who submitted that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge is in order.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records.
6. We find that the only relief that was granted by the learned Single Judge was to issue directions to the officer of the Station concerned to forward the complaint to the Police Station having jurisdiction and to act upon the complaint in accordance with law. At this stage, the appellants cannot be stated to be aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge. If any action is taken by the police, he is well within his
rights to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. We find no reason to interfere. This Writ Appeal will stand dismissed.
Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
APM