D. Vinod Kumar vs. Director General Of Police & Kerala Police Chief

Facts

The petitioner, D. Vinod Kumar, filed a writ petition alleging that he had lodged complaints against respondents 4 to 6, leading to the registration of crimes against them. He claimed that these respondents were now threatening him and sought protection by filing a complaint (Ext.P6) before the 6th respondent (Deputy Superintendent of Police). As no action was taken on his complaint, he approached the High Court. Respondents 4 and 5 contended that the petitioner's allegations were malafide, driven by untenable demands, and that they had not caused and did not intend to cause any harm to the petitioner. The Government Pleader stated that the petitioner's life was adequately protected as per an interim order dated November 12, 2021, but investigations suggested the petitioner's complaints might have been made with negative designs. The investigation was ongoing.

Held

The Court confirmed the interim order dated November 12, 2021, which ensured the petitioner's life was adequately protected. The Court held that the police have a legal obligation to investigate all crimes and complaints diligently and faithfully, and to protect citizens' lives. It clarified that the police must investigate all complaints made by the petitioner or the party respondents against each other, in accordance with the law, and take necessary action against either or both parties as per statutory prescriptions. The Court emphasized that the protection granted was to ensure the petitioner's safety, but if the petitioner's conduct contravened the law, the police would take appropriate action. The Court also directed the police to take cognizance of any future complaints between the parties and maintain law and order without breach of peace. No specific GST provisions were discussed or applied.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to police protection against alleged threats from respondents 4 to 6, considering the conflicting claims of harassment and malafide complaints between the parties. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he is facing threats and intimidation from respondents 4 to 6 due to complaints he lodged against them, necessitating police protection. He relied on his complaint (Ext.P6) and the failure of the police to act on it as grounds for seeking relief. Respondents 4 and 5's contention: They argued that the petitioner's allegations are false and malafide, claiming he is harassing them for unreasonable demands. They asserted they have not caused and will not cause any harm to the petitioner. Revenue/State's contention: The Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner's life has been protected as per an interim order. However, investigations indicate the petitioner's complaints might be motivated by negative designs. The police are continuing their investigation into the complaints.