[ad_1]
Kerala High Court
Asif Azad vs Shafna C on 18 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:53543
'C.R.'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TH
FRIDAY, THE 18 DAY OF JULY 2025 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO.1150 OF 2024
PETITIONER :-
ASIF AZAD, AGED 32 YEARS
DARUSSALAM, PARAYATHUKONAM P.O, KIZHUVILAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 695 104
BY ADV ASIF AZAD(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
RESPONDENTS :-
1 SHAFNA C
CHETTI THODIYIL HOUSE AMAYOOR PO, PALAKKAD KERALA,
INDIA, PIN - 679 303
2 MUHAMMED SALIM ALIAS MAMBI
SON OF UMMER, PONNACHAMTHODI SALIM MANZIL,
NELLAYA PO, MOSCO, POTTACHIRA, PALAKKAD, KERALA,
INDIA, PIN - 679 335
3 HABEEBULLAH PT
POURATHODIYIL HOUSE, PARUDUR P.O, KODIKUNNU,
PALAKKAD, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 679 305
4 ARAFA NALLA KANDY
DAUGHTER OF HAMEED CHEETHAYIL PUTHIYAPURAYIL, ARAFA,
ANJARAKANDY, KANNUR, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 670 612
5 ANAS
PONNACHAMTHODI SALIM MANZIL, NELLAYA PO, MOSCO,
POTTACHIRA, PALAKKAD, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 679 335
6 ABDUL MUNEER
KUNNATHU HOUSE, PARUDUR PO, PALLIPPURAM, PATTAMBI,
PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 679 305
7 SHAHADA TK
THANIKKATT HOUSE, KAVANCHERY P.O, KAIMALASSERY,
ALINGAL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, INDIA,
PIN - 676 561
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 2 :-
2025:KER:53543
8 ABDUL WAHID TK
THANIKKATT HOUSE, KAVANCHERY P.O, KAIMALASSERY,
ALINGAL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, INDIA,
PIN - 676 561
9 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHERUPPULASSERY POLICE STATION, KACHERIKUNNU,
CHERUPPULASSERY, PALAKKAD, KERALA, INDIA,
PIN - 679 503
0 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DYSP OFFICE, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD, KERALA,
INDIA, PIN - 679 121
11 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
YAKKARA ROAD, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, PALAKKAD,
KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 678 014
12 STATE POLICE CHIEF
STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM,
CITY-THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,
INDIA, PIN - 695 010
13 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH, TC 1757/5,
"CBI OCR COMPLEX", MUTTATHARA, VALLAKADAVU POST
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - KERALA, PIN - 695 008
ADDL.14 UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS REPRESENTED BY FOREIGN
SECRETARY, SO(DB), 74B, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI,
INDIA, PIN - 110011.
ADDL.R14 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
08/01/2025 IN WP(CRL.) 1150/2024.
BY ADVS.
SHAFNA C(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED
SRI.T.C.KRISHNA, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
SMT.SEETHA S., SR.PP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 18.07.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).36119/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 3 :-
2025:KER:53543
'C.R.'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TH
FRIDAY, THE 18 DAY OF JULY 2025 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO.36119 OF 2024
PETITIONER :-
ASIF AZAD, AGED 32 YEARS
DARUSSALAM, PARAYATHUKONAM P.O, KIZHUVILAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 695 104
BY ADV ASIF AZAD,(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
RESPONDENTS :-
1 SHAFNA C,
CHETTI THODIYIL HOUSE AMAYOOR PO, PALAKKAD KERALA,
INDIA, PIN - 679 303
2 MUHAMMED SALIM ALIAS MAMBI,
SON OF UMMER, PONNACHAMTHODI SALIM MANZIL,
NELLAYA PO, MOSCO, POTTACHIRA, PALAKKAD, KERALA,
INDIA, PIN - 679 335
3 HABEEBULLAH P T,
POURATHODIYIL HOUSE, PARUDUR P.O, KODIKUNNU,
PALAKKAD, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 679 305
4 ARAFA NALLA KANDY,
DAUGHTER OF HAMEED CHEETHAYIL PUTHIYAPURAYIL,
ARAFA, ANJARAKANDY, KANNUR, KERALA,
INDIA, PIN - 670 612
5 ANAS,
PONNACHAMTHODI SALIM MANZIL, NELLAYA PO, MOSCO,
POTTACHIRA, PALAKKAD, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 679 335
6 ABDUL MUNEER,
KUNNATHU HOUSE, PARUDUR PO, PALLIPPURAM, PATTAMBI,
PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 679 305
7 SHAHADA T K,
THANIKKATT HOUSE, KAVANCHERY P.O, KAIMALASSERY,
ALINGAL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, INDIA,
PIN - 676 561
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 4 :-
2025:KER:53543
8 ABDUL WAHID T K,
THANIKKATT HOUSE, KAVANCHERY P.O, KAIMALASSERY,
ALINGAL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, INDIA,
PIN - 676 561
9 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CHERUPPULASSERY POLICE STATION, KACHERIKUNNU,
CHERUPPULASSERY, PALAKKAD, KERALA, INDIA,
PIN - 679 503
0 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DYSP OFFICE, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD, KERALA,
INDIA, PIN - 679 121
11 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
YAKKARA ROAD, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, PALAKKAD, KERALA,
INDIA, PIN - 678 014
12 STATE POLICE CHIEF,
STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM,
CITY-THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,
INDIA, PIN - 695 010
13 MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
REPRESENTED BY FOREIGN SECRETARY, SO(DB),
74B SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, INDIA, PIN - 110 011
14 REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE,
REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
SNSM BUILDING, KARALKADA JUNCTION, PETTAH P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM, KERALA, PIN - 695 024
15 EMBASSY OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY AMBASSADOR OF INDIA TO UAE,
PLOT NO. 10, SECTOR W-59/02, DIPLOMATIC AREA,
OFF THE SHEIKH RASHID BIN SAEED STREET (EARLIER KNOWN
AS AIRPORT ROAD), NEAR TO PEPSICOLA,
ABU DHABI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES P. O. BOX 4090
BY ADV O.M.SHALINA, DSGI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.07.2025, ALONG WITH WP(Crl.).1150/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 5 :-
2025:KER:53543
'C.R.'
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P.(Crl.) No.1150 of 2024
and
W.P.(C) No.36119 of 2024
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The rule of law demands obedience to court orders.
Disregard for court orders undermines the integrity of the
justice system. The petitioner herein will appear only as a party
in person; of course, there is no bar to the same. However, a
litigant appearing as a party in person should be familiar with
the basics of courtroom decorum, and he should know the
consequences for making unnecessary submissions even after a
warning. These two writ petitions are filed by Mr. Asif Azad, who
appeared ‘party in person’ through online mode. The prayers in
W.P.(Crl.) No.1150 of 2024 are extracted hereunder:-
“1. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing any of
the respondent No.9 to 12 or 13 to immediately lodge the
FIR against respondent No.1 to 5 on Exhibit P1 (Exhibit P9
in WP(C) 36119/2024) under Sections 1(4), 1(5), 308(6),
311, 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS.
2. To allow this petition with cost.” [SIC]
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 6 :-
2025:KER:53543
2. The prayers in W.P.(C) No.36119 of 2024 are as
follows :-
“1. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing
Respondent No.12 to immediately locate and collect the
petitioner’s old passport, currently unlawfully retained by
Respondents No.1 to 5, and hand it over to Respondent
No.14 and additionally this honourable high court may
direct Respondent No.14 to issue a new passport to the
petitioner within 72 hours and forward it to Respondent
No.15 and additionally, Respondent No.15 may direct to
hand over both the newly issued passport and the old
passport to the petitioner within 96 hours.
2. To allow this petition with cost.” [SIC]
3. When these writ petitions came up for consideration,
the petitioner who appeared ‘party in person’ through online
submitted that this Court should avoid these writ petitions,
because this Court had earlier imposed cost on the petitioner in
another proceeding. The petitioner also submitted that he has
filed a complaint against me before the Hon’ble President of
India and also before the Registrar General of this Court.
According to the petitioner, he will not get justice from this
Bench. Hence, he submitted that these cases are to be avoided
by this Court.
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 7 :-
2025:KER:53543
4. The same petitioner appeared before this Court in
W.P.(C)(Filing) No.33689 of 2024 (Asif Azad v. Jaimon Baby
[2025 KHC online 757]) and made the same submission before
this Court. This Court, after considering the above submission,
observed like this in the above case:-
“Mr. Asif Asad filed the above case, and he appeared in
the case as ‘party in person’. The prayers in the writ petition
are extracted hereunder:
i. To issue a writ, order or direction in favour of
the petitioner for the facts, reasons and
circumstances stated in the accompanying
petitions which is duly supported by an
affidavit, It is most humbly prayed that in the
interest of Natural Justice by restoring the
violated constitutional and fundamental rights
of Article 14, 20, 21 and 141 of Constitution of
India by set-aside Exhibit P 8 and quash Exhibit
P 5 of the Complaint Case dated 30.06.2018
lodged by respondent no. 1 registered as ST
2600/2018 under Section 138, Negotiable
Instruments Act filed before Hon’ble First-Class
Magistrate Court I Kottarakkara, Kollam.
ii. To issue any other suitable order or direction in
the nature to which this Hon’ble Court deems
just proper in favour of the petitioner.
iii. To allow this petition with cost. (SIC)
2. The writ petition was represented after curing the
defects with a petition to condone the delay of 40 days in
representation. This court issued notice to the 1st respondent
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 8 :-
2025:KER:53543on 04.11.2024 in the above delay condonation petition. Notice
was returned with an endorsement ‘Adressee left’. When this
writ petition came up for consideration on 13.06.2025, this
Court passed the following order :
“Petitioner will take steps to cure the defect within
two weeks. If no steps are taken, Registry will post
the matter in the defect list, after two weeks.”
3. Today, the petitioner appeared in person online and
submitted that, this Court should avoid this writ petition because
earlier this Court imposed a cost on the petitioner in another
proceeding. The petitioner refused to submit anything else. The
imposition of cost in one case will never lead to the imposition of
cost in all the cases filed by the petitioner. Each case will be
decided based on the merit of that particular case. A litigant
cannot dictate to the Court that the case should be avoided by a
Judge. The roster is prepared by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The
Judge, who is hearing the case, can decide to avoid the case if
necessary. But a litigant cannot dictate to the Court to avoid his
case by a Judge who is allotted the jurisdiction by the Hon’ble
Chief Justice as per the roster. If such a practice is started, the
litigants can pick and choose the judge who has to hear their
case. The same cannot be allowed. A Judge is bound to hear the
cases allotted as per the roster notified by the Hon’ble the Chief
Justice. Admittedly, this case is to be heard by this Court as per
the present roster. The petitioner is not ready to argue the case
before this Court. The submission of the petitioner itself is
contemptuous. But I restrain myself from taking any action
against the petitioner because the petitioner is appearing in
person, and he may not be aware of the decorum of a court of
law and the submission to be made in a court of law. But the
petitioner had appeared before this court earlier in other cases
also. If any such submissions are made in the future, this court
will be forced to take action in accordance with the law. As far as
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 9 :-
2025:KER:53543
the present case is concerned, no steps have been taken to cure
the defect as ordered by this Court on 13.06.2025.
Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed for default.”
5. The above judgment was delivered by this Court on
08.07.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner again appeared before
this Court today on 18.07.2025, i.e., just after ten days and
made the same submission. The petitioner is also threatening
this Court, stating that he has filed a complaint before the
President of India and other authorities against me. On
08.07.2025, this Court clearly stated that such submission
made by the petitioner is contemptuous, and I restrained myself
from taking any action against the petitioner because the
petitioner is appearing in person, and he may not be aware of
the decorum of a court of law and the submission to be made in
a court of law. But the petitioner appeared again and made the
same submission. I am told that the petitioner has made such
submissions before the other Benches of this Court as well,
because an adverse order was passed against him. My brother,
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, dismissed a writ petition filed by
the same petitioner after imposing costs. It will be better to
extract the relevant paragraphs of that judgment, Asif Azad v.
Union of India [2023(4) KHC 77]:
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 10 :-
2025:KER:53543“10. As mentioned earlier, the reliefs claimed by the
petitioner are odious and repugnant to the orderly filing of
writ petitions. The proclivity to file writ petitions without any
basis and to threaten the system into ridicule cannot be
permitted under any count. Access to justice, though a
fundamental right, cannot be extended to a right to prefer
misconceived and frivolous petitions. The nature of reliefs
claimed for and the nebulous pleadings are indicative of
absence of any particular right of the petitioner having been
infringed.
11. Apart from the above, in the absence of violation of any
specific right, a person cannot approach this Court under
Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The nature of pleadings
and the reliefs claimed for reveals that the writ petition is
filed on an experimental basis and in bad taste. The manner
in which the petitioner has raised his pleadings in the writ
petition and the nature of reliefs sought compels this Court
to visit the petitioner with costs as a disincentive for
indulging in such frivolous writ petitions.
12. In this context the observation of the Supreme Court in
Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran and Others, 1996
(5) SCC 530 is pertinent to be borne in mind. It was observed
therein that ‘No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on
the courts time and public money in order to get his affairs
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 11 :-
2025:KER:53543settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice
should not be misused as a license to file misconceived or
frivolous petitions’.”
After the above judgment, I am told that he submitted
before my brother, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, to avoid his
subsequent cases. This is the practice of the petitioner. Now the
petitioner is also threatening this court, alleging that he filed a
complaint against me. At this stage, it will be beneficial to quote
the words of Honourable Justice J.S. Kehar in Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record Association and Another v. Union
of India [2015 KHC 4708];
“…..In my considered view, the prayer for my recusal is not
well founded. If I were to accede to the prayer for my recusal, I
would be initiating a wrong practice, and laying down a wrong
precedent. A Judge may recuse at his own, from a case entrusted
to him by the Chief Justice. That would be a matter of his own
choosing. But recusal at the asking of a litigating party, unless
justified, must never to be acceded to. For that would give the
impression, of the Judge had been scared out of the case, just by
the force of the objection. A Judge before he assumes his office,
takes an oath to discharge his duties without fear or favour. He
would breach his oath of office, if he accepts a prayer for
recusal, unless justified. It is my duty to discharge my
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 12 :-
2025:KER:53543responsibility with absolute earnestness and sincerity. It is my
duty to abide by my oath of office, to uphold the Constitution
and the laws. My decision to continue to be a part of the Bench,
flows from the oath which I took, at the time of my elevation to
this Court.” (underline supplied)
With great respect, I am following the above words of
Honourable Justice J.S. Kehar, who was our former Chief Justice
of India. No other words need to be stated. I am confident that I
am upholding the oath I have taken, and I am discharging my
duty in accordance with the Constitution of India. When I have
faith in it, I am not bothered about such threats. The petitioner
is threatening this Court by stating that he approached the
President of India and other authorities against me. I am least
bothered about the complaint submitted by the petitioner
before the authorities because I am exercising my judicial
powers in accordance with the law and the Constitution of India.
A person threatening this Court, stating that he filed a
complaint against the Judge, and the case should be avoided by
that Judge, cannot be accepted at all. Since the petitioner is not
ready to argue these cases, these cases are to be dismissed.
Even after giving a warning to the petitioner on 08.07.2025 in
the judgment, which is extracted above, the petitioner is
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 13 :-
2025:KER:53543continuing to disobey the orders. I am of the considered opinion
that these writ petitions are to be dismissed with heavy costs.
Therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed. The
petitioner will pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) to the High Court Legal Services Authority
within one month. If the amount is not paid, the High Court
Legal Services Authority is free to take appropriate steps to
recover the same from the petitioner as per the Revenue
Recovery Act.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
Jvt
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 14 :-
2025:KER:53543APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36119/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS :-
Exhibit P 1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DUBAI
PUBLIC PROSECUTION TO CLAIM THAT PETITIONER
FILED COMPLAINT AGAINST RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 3
AT DUBAI POLICE WITH REQUEST NO. 178296/2024
DATED 19.08.2024
Exhibit P 2 PHOTOCOPY OF PETITIONER’S PASSPORT EXPIRING IN
9 DAYS WITH PASSPORT NUMBER M2919252 WITH
EXPIRY DATE 19.10.2024
Exhibit P 3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE WHATSAPP CHATS BETWEEN
PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO. 2 DATED
19.08.2023
Exhibit P 4 TRUE COPY OF THE IMAGES OF THE INVENTION OF
FRSHAR LAPTOPS MADE BY PETITIONER
Exhibit P 5 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17767/2021
DATED 05.01.2022 OF THIS HONOURABLE HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
Exhibit P 6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFER LETTER GIVEN BY
RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO RESPONDENT NO. 4 WITH
TRANSACTION NO. MB260536904AE DATED 10.02.2024
Exhibit P 7 PHOTOCOPY OF ABSCONDING – ELECTRONIC WITH
TRANSACTION NO. MB262319023AE AGAINST
RESPONDENT NO. 4 BY PETITIONER DATED
12.03.2024
Exhibit P 8 PHOTOCOPY OF WITHDRAW ABSCONDING REQUEST WITH
TRANSACTION NO. MB271085130AE FOR RESPONDENT
NO. 4 BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 DATED 01.08.2024
Exhibit P 9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINTS FILED WITH
RESPONDENT NO. 9 TO 12 DATED 12.10.2024
Exhibit P 10 TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION OF THIS
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(CRL.)
1106/2024(FILING NO) DATED 30.09.2024
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 15 :-
2025:KER:53543
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1150/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS :-
Exhibit P 1 TRUE COPY OF WP(C) 36119/2024 DATED 09.10.2024
Exhibit P 2 TRUE COPY OF LEGAL TRANSLATION OF SAID FOUCHAL
LEGAL TRANSLATION SERVICES ON THE RESCUE OF
PETITIONER BY ABU DHABI POLICE ALONG WITH
AMBULANCE TREATMENT PETITIONER RECEIVED AT AL
AIN
Exhibit P 3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE EMAIL RECEIVED BY PETITIONER
([email protected]) VIA GMAIL FROM KOTAK
BANK ([email protected]) ABOUT THE DIRECT
EVIDENCE OF STOLEN PROPERTY DATED 18.12.2024
Exhibit P 5 Photocopy of the screenshot of Dubai police e-
services enquiring about the cases against
petitioner stating no criminal circulars in
financial cases
Exhibit P 6 Photocopy of the email communication between
petitioner ([email protected]) and Kotak Bank
([email protected], [email protected])
to know the status of the cheque respondent
no. 3, forged and produce it before Judicial
First-Class Magistrate Pattambi dated
28.04.2025
Exhibit P 7 Photocopy of the reply of the email
communication between petitioner (ceo@
frshar.com) and Kotak Bank
([email protected], arya.vl @kotak.com)
to know the status of the cheque respondent
no. 3, forged and produce it before Judicial
First-Class Magistrate Pattambi dated
28.04.2025
Exhibit P 8 Photocopy of the proof of theft by respondent
no. 1 to 5 as the stolen items in Dubai has
used in India in case in CMP 1670/2025 at
Judicial First-Class Magistrate Pattambi by
committing forgery by respondent no. 3 against
petitioner illegally through Advocate Sajina
KM with enrolment number K/000841/2009 on
10.12.2024 as per the date in the cheque
mentioned by the Honourable Magistrate to the
petitioner is the incident after sending
notice in WP(C) 42981/2024 of this Honourable
High Court of Kerala itself is a direct
evidence
Exhibit P 9 Photocopy of the complaint filed by the
petitioner ([email protected]) to the SHO
Pattambi Police Station
(shoptmbipspkd.pol@kerala. gov.in) in the
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 16 :-
2025:KER:53543forgery of cheque and for using Stolen items
from Dubai, dated 23.03.2025
Exhibit P 10 Photocopy of sworn statement given by
petitioner to the District Crime Branch
Palakkad and mention signed in forged stolen
cheque from Dubai used in Kerala dated
03.04.2025
Exhibit P 11 Photocopy of the bank statement of
petitioner’s ADCB bank account at Dubai with
Account number 13364578920001 ranging from
23.01.2024 to 15.07.2024 having a total debit
of 1529.23 AED (36,089 INR) and a credit of
698 AED (16,472 INR)
Exhibit P 12 Photocopy of the bank statement of
petitioner’s ADCB bank account at Dubai with
Account number 13364578920001 ranging from
23.01.2024 to 15.07.2024 having a total debit
of 1024.80 AED (24,185 INR), a credit of
440,625 AED (10,398,750 INR) and Cheque amount
deposited by respondent no. 2 and 3 is 440,000
AED (10,384,000 INR)
Exhibit P 13 Photocopy of the news extract from E-News
Malayalam dated 07.08.2024, the editors got
severe threat even from respondent no. 1 to 5
to remove the news link
Exhibit P 14 Photocopy of the reply of SHO, Pattambi Police
Station in the complaint filed by petitioner
on forgery dated 26.03.2025, stating that they
can’t take FIR on cognizable offence, thus by
violating the Article 141 of Constitution of
India (Lalita Kumari case (Surpa)) and Section
198 of BNS or 166 of IPC [Contempt of Court
(Violating Constitution Bench Direction)]
Exhibit P 15 Photocopy of the complaint to the magistrate
of Judicial First-Class Court Pattambi via
email communication from petitioner
([email protected]) to the magistrate
(jfcmptb.court@kerala. gov.in) dated
07.04.2025
Exhibit P 16 Photocopy of the order passed by the Director
General of Police cum Kerala State Police
Chief in Endt No K5-187675/2024/PHQ dated
10.10.2024 as ‘petitioner’s complaint has to
be investigated by an officer ranked should
not below DYSP’
Exhibit P 17 Photocopy of chats between petitioner
[ 971581677917] and DYSP Shornur
[ 919497990097] (respondent no. 10) stating
that ‘petitioner filed the complaint because
respondent no. 2 demanded 1 crore amount’, but
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 17 :-
2025:KER:53543the DYSP Shornur (respondent no. 10) changed
the statement and complaint filed by the
petitioner and reported to the Director
General of Police cum Kerala State Police
Chief
Exhibit P 18 Photocopy of the complaint filed against DYSP
Shornur (respondent no. 10), SHO
Cheruppulassery (Respondent no. 9), Sasikumar
(Writer of Cheruppulassery Police Station) on
filing false statement in the Honourable High
Court of Kerala which is punishable offence
under Sections 167, 218, 192, 201, 466 IPC/
Sections 201, 256, 228, 238, 337 BNS
Exhibit P 19 Photocopy of the RTI reply from Public
Information Officer, Cheruppulassery Police
Station to Petitioner (Kerala Residential
Address), that the statement has read and
confirmed with petitioner by the police which
is a lie in the RTI reply dated 15.03.2025 to
create fabricated document for favouring
respondent no. 1 to 5 in relationship with
respondent no. 1 to 5 is evident in the
YouTube video link of bribery by respondent
no. 2 with respondent no. 9
Exhibit P 20 Photocopy of call history between petitioner (
971581677917) and police Cheruppulassry
( 919496352137) mentioned in the RTI reply of
Exhibit P 19 are a lie because no one read any
kind of Statement to petitioner and take
approval or signature from petitioner like
Exhibit P 10 of District Crime Branch did in
the statement taken and Respondent no. 9 filed
compressed 60% statement by changing the
complaint and the statement for favouring
respondent no. 1 to 5
Exhibit P 21 Photocopy of the appeal reply in RTI
confirming that respondent no. 1 never
appeared in this writ petition [WP(Crl)
1150/2025] as party in person either
physically or virtually but in all the orders
it is mentioning that respondent no. 1
appeared as party in person, which is not true
which is confirmed/proved in the appeal of RTI
reply send by Registrar General of Honourable
High Court of Kerala in RIA (Appeal) No.
13/2025 dated 21.03.2025
Exhibit P 22 Photocopy of the petitioner received a
photograph from an known source related to a
celebration, which is alleged to have been
staged to deceive the petitioner by
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 18 :-
2025:KER:53543Respondents No. 4 and 5. Although Respondent
No. 4 is married and her husband is currently
in Qatar, and Respondent No. 5 is also married
with his wife residing in Kerala, both
Respondents No. 4 and 5 are reportedly living
together. It is further alleged that
Respondents No. 4 and 5 are involved in drug
trafficking. They allegedly travelled to Saudi
Arabia under the pretext of performing Umrah
and smuggled drugs from Saudi Arabia to Dubai
on behalf of an individual known as Many alias
Muhammed Kutty, who is believed to be a drug
dealer and mafia don. The petitioner claims to
have seen these drugs and reported the matter
to the authorities, causing the drug mafia to
incur significant financial losses. As a
result, the petitioner is allegedly being
targeted and trapped in Dubai by the drug
mafia. In the photograph, both Respondents No.
4 and 5 are seen wearing sunglasses. It is
also claimed that Respondent No. 4 escaped to
Dubai after assaulting a police officer and is
a fugitive from justice due to pending
criminal charges, including evading action
under the KAAPA (Kerala Anti-Social Activities
[Prevention] Act)
Exhibit P 23 Photocopy of the car photo of the drug mafia
don [also known by many aliases as Muhammed
Kutty], taken by the petitioner on 10.02.2024
at 09:20 PM under the direction of the
Narcotics CID of the Dubai Police
[ 971505516218], was sent to the CID (Dubai)
via WhatsApp from the petitioner’s number
971581677917
Exhibit P 24 Photocopy of the news extract from The Indian
Express is a necessary part of this writ
petition, as it highlights how the UAE police
initially closed the case as a suicide.
However, after a two-year-long fight by the
victim’s mother, the Hon’ble High Court of
Kerala ordered a CBI investigation, treating
it as a case of murder. A similar course of
action is required in this matter as well, due
to the involvement of a drug mafia and the
need for a cross-border
investigation—particularly regarding how
the petitioner’s passport travelled from Dubai
to Kerala, and how Respondents No. 1 to 3
managed to smuggle it into India while evading
airport security scanners
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 19 :-
2025:KER:53543
Exhibit P25 Photocopy of the travel ticket from Dubai to
Trivandrum, sent by Respondent No. 2 from
Palakkad and dated 16.03.2024, led to the
petitioner being treated like a terrorist by
customs officials at Trivandrum airport upon
arrival. As only Respondents No. 2 and 3 were
aware of the petitioner’s travel
details—Respondent No. 3 being in Dubai
and Respondent No. 2 in Palakkad—it
raises serious suspicion. While at the Dubai
airport, the petitioner noticed that
petitioner’s bag was tightly wrapped, and on
multiple occasions, observed Respondent No. 3
attempting to place something inside the bag.
This is believed to be the reason for the
harsh treatment by airport customs at
Trivandrum. Therefore, a CBI investigation is
necessary, as supported by Exhibit P 24
Exhibit P 26 Photocopy of the flight ticket sent by
Muhammed Salim (Respondent No. 2) on
15.07.2024 for the petitioner to travel from
Trivandrum to Dubai was part of a plan to trap
the petitioner along with drug mafia. All of
the petitioner’s belongings, including
petitioner’s passport, were stolen through a
conspiracy involving Respondents No. 1 to 5.
Respondent No. 2 took all of the petitioner’s
possessions from petitioner’s room while the
petitioner was being rescued by Abu Dhabi
police from a locked room at Al-Ain located
140 kilometres away from the site of a night-
time robbery, where Respondents No. 1 to 3 had
confined the petitioner
Exhibit P 27 True copy of judgment in WP(C) NO. 8944 OF
2023, the Honourable Chief Justice of Kerala,
S. Manikumar, passed a judgment in the PIL,
stating that the petitioner is entitled to
take action against advocates. Accordingly,
the petitioner intends to proceed against
Advocate Haroon Rasheed on the grounds that,
despite knowing the petitioner is residing in
Dubai, the advocate misrepresented facts
before the court. Advocate Haroon Rasheed has
not maintained courtroom decorum and is not
addressing the case appropriately. Instead of
arguing based on documents and facts, he is
presenting fabricated narratives. Initially,
he falsely claimed that the petitioner was in
Kerala. When that assertion was disproved, he
claimed the petitioner was subject to a travel
W.P.(Crl.)No.1150/2024 &
WPC No.36119/2024
-: 20 :-
2025:KER:53543
ban. This conduct appears to be a deliberate
attempt to mislead the court. Furthermore, the
advocate has been submitting documents to the
court secretly, without officially filing them
or serving copies to the petitioner, which
undermines the transparency of the
proceedings. The court’s acceptance of such
actions raises serious legal concerns, and the
relief sought by the petitioner in the PIL
becomes even more crucial under these
circumstances. The petitioner has complaint
against Advocate Haroon Rasheed for arguing
beyond the scope of the writ petition. The
petitioner asserts that petitioner is being
denied a fair opportunity to respond, as
filings and arguments are being made without
proper notice or procedure
[ad_2]
Source link