IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 WP(C).No. 33748 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PARVATHY SREEDHARAN, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.LATE SREEDHARAN, AILATTIL HOUSE, IRIMPOOZHIKKAVA, UDAYANAPURAM, VAIKKOM. 2. BHUVANESWARAN T.S., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE SREEDHARAN, AILATTIL HOUSE, IRIMPANAM P.O., TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ SMT.K.M.RASHMI (PARAVOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM-695001. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKKOM- 686141. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKKOM- 686141. 5. SURESH T.S., AGED 42, S/O.LATE SREEDHARAN, AILATTIL HOUSE, IRIMPOOZHIKKAVA, UDAYANAPURAM, VAIKKOM-686141. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33748 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER AND HER TOW SONS. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.27-9-2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SNDP. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.8-12-2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R1 BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.33748 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner and her elder son have filed this writ petition complaining that at the instance of the 5th respondent, who is the younger son of the 1st petitioner, the officers of the police, respondents 3 and 4 are harassing them every now and then. 2. On considering this writ petition for admission we directed Mr.M.K.Aboobacker, the learned Government Pleader Sri.M.K.Aboobacker who took notice on behalf of the police officers to seek instructions. Today on the basis of the instructions received Mr.Aboobacker submitted that the accusations of harassment levelled against the police officers in this writ petition are not correct. Ext.P3 complaint was filed by the 1st petitioner against the 5th respondent. As part of the enquiry into that complaint, the attendance of the petitioners and the 5th respondent was solicited. In the enquiry it was revealed that the 5th respondent is a leukaemia patient. It is further revealed that as the condition of the 5th respondent was very W.P(C) No.33748 of 2011 2 serious, the petitioners anticipated that in the event of the 5th respondent is passing away the property belonging to the 5th respondent will go to the wife and children of the 5th respondent. This was not a very happy prospect to the petitioners. The petitioners desired that the 5th respondent will convey his property immediately to them. The petitioners wanted the assistance of the police in this matter. Being a civil matter the police were unwilling to do anything. The police have advised the party to have recourse to civil remedies. 2. Smt.Jayasree Manoj, the learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that respondents 3 and 4 are not permitting the 5th respondent deal with his properties freely. Their intervention in the issue between the petitioners and the 5th respondent which is purely a family issue, is unauthorised. This amounts to harassment. Every now and then the petitioners are being harassed. 3. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar the only question which we are called upon to decide is whether respondents 3 and 4 can be found guilty of having harassed the petitioners for promoting the interest of the 5th respondent. We are not convinced on the basis of the available W.P(C) No.33748 of 2011 3 materials that respondents 3 and 4 have harassed the petitioners at the instance of the 5th respondent. We decline the reliefs sought for. However, there will be a direction to respondents 3 and 4 not to intervene in the civil dispute if any between the petitioner and the 5th respondent as regards the properties and there will be a further direction that if they require the attendance of the petitioners in connection with any enquiry or investigation, they shall issue notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Smt.Jayasree Manoj further submitted that the petitioners are not permitted to enter the limits of Vaikom Police Station. Mr.Aboobacker submitted that this allegation is not at all true. We permit the petitioner to initiate fresh proceedings if necessary for police protection to visit Vaikom. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.33748 of 2011 4