IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29167 of 2011(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BIJU MATHEW, S/O.MATHAI, AGED 33 YEARS, CHENGANNOOR VILAYIL HOUSE, KAIPUZHA NORTH P.O., KULANADA, PANDALAM,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION-689 001. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 001. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. STATE ATTORNEY/BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P.MANGHUZHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.29167/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS P1:-COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/5/2011 IN CRMC 1039/2011 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P2:- COPY OF THE DATED 25/8/2009 IN CRMC 2678/09 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P3:- COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM REPORTED IN MANGALAM DAILY DATED 8/7/2011. P4:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27/10.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH A COPY TO THE 3ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C).NO.29167 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The petitioner, who claims to be conducting real estate business and living as a law abiding citizen with family consisting himself and his aged parents, has approached this Court complaining that the first respondent – Sub Inspector of Police, Pandalam is harassing him. 2. On considering this writ petition for admission, we directed the State Attorney to take notice on behalf of the Police Officer and to seek instructions from the officer as to the correctness of the accusation of police harassment. 3. Today on behalf of the State Attorney, it is submitted that accusations of police harassment are absolutely frivolous. On the basis of the report given to him in writing by the first respondent, it was submitted that the petitioner is accused in the following crimes registered by various police stations. W.P.(C).NO.29167 OF 2011 : 2 : Sl.no Name of police station Crime No Section of Law 1 Pandalam Cr.83/97 379,212,201,34 IPC 2 Pandalam Cr.109/97 380,212,120(b),34IPC 3 Pandalam Cr.160/04 107 CRPC 4 Pandalam Cr.17/04 341,323,354,394,452,427 ,34 IPC 5 Pandalam Cr.275/06 452,294(b),506(11), 323,34IPC 6 Pathanamthitta Cr.851/05 379 IPC 7 Pathanamthitta Cr.932/06 341,323,325,34 IPC 8 Adoor Cr.206/97 380,212,120(b),34 IPC 9 Adoor Cr.68/03 394 IPC 10 Adoor Cr.500/02 394 IPC 11 Chalakudi Cr 669/06 394 IPC 12 Pandalam Cr.372/07 Section 3 of KAAPA 2007 13 Thrissur East Cr.24/08 379 IPC 14 Cehngannoor Cr.302/08 294(b),332, 34 IPC 15 Cehngannoor Cr.301/08 332,34 IPC R/W 3(2)(c) of PDPP Act 16 Kunnamkulam Cr.1180/08 399 IPC 17 Pandalam Cr.673/07 341,323,324,326,427,34 IPC 18 Adoor Cr 829/08 143,147,148,323,324,326 ,427,149 IPC 19 Pandalam Cr.585/09 447,323,294(b),506(1),34 IPC 20 Pandalam Cr 929/10 143,147,149,452,427 IPC r/w S.11(1) (a) The Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act W.P.(C).NO.29167 OF 2011 : 3 : Sl.no Name of police station Crime No Section of Law 21 Pandalam Cr.84/11 143,147,149,341,323 IPC 22 Pandalam Cr.85/11 308,341,323,34 IPC 23 Pandalam Cr 288/11 143,147,149,341,323 IPC 24 Pandalam Cr.331/11 394 IPC 4. It was submitted that it was in connection with the investigation into those crimes that the police wanted attendance of the petitioner. Mr. K.H. Sakir, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in many of the crimes final reports have been submitted revealing that accusations in the FIR were false. He also submitted that his only request is that the petitioner may not be harassed. He is prepared to co-operate with the investigating agency. 5. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, the only question we should decide is whether there is any warrant for issuance of directions against the alleged police harassment. We are convinced that the action of the police against the petitioner does not amount to harassment. We decline the relief sought for. We permit the petitioner to pursue the remedies available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure against the crimes which W.P.(C).NO.29167 OF 2011 : 4 : are registered against him. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. Sd/- K.HARILAL,JUDGE. cl