IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14466 of 2011(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.KRISHNAN NAIR,S/O.LATE V.KRISHNAN NAIR AGED 65 YEARS, "SAROJAM",KURUDAN PARAMBU, MANGALAM P.O.- 679301, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALISSERY POLICE STATION, CHALISSERY-679536, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. P.V.VIJAYA, D/O.NANIKUTTY AMMA, VAZHAKKATTU PUTHENVEETTIL, NAGALASSERI POST-679533 KOOTTANAD VIA., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. KRISHNANKUTTY, VAZHAKKATTU PUTHENVEETTIL NAGALASSERI POST-679533, KOOTTANAD VIA., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.14466/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED, WITH THE CORRECTIONS AS SUGGESTED BY THE COUNSEL WHO REPRESENTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING AND DATED 16.5.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.14466 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J: The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition complaining about harassment by the police. It is prayed that directions under Article 226 of the Constitution may be issued by this Court to ensure that such harassment and vexation is put an end to. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the second respondent. According to the petitioner, it was a late marriage in old age of the petitioner and the second respondent. Some strains have developed in the matrimony. The 3rd respondent is the brother-in-law of the second respondent. Succumbing to the influence of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, the first respondent - Sub Inspector of Police is vexing and harassing the petitioner. He has allegedly compelled the petitioner to execute a document in favour of the 2nd respondent and to issue a cheque. The police officer is illegally retaining the cheque and the signed W.P.(C).NO.14466 OF 2011 : 2 : papers. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition. 3. Notice was served on the respondents. Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submits that the allegations raised are totally false. 4. According to respondents 2 and 3, in the counter affidavit filed by them there has been some strain in the relationship between the 2nd respondent and the petitioner. A complaint was lodged by the second respondent before the police. The police had called both the parties. Subsequently parties have settled their disputes outside the police station and had reported that fact to the police. The police had not taken any further action against the petitioner on the complaint/petition of the 2nd respondent. 5. According to respondents 2 and 3, the agreement was that the parties shall file a joint application for divorce under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act. A petition was duly signed for that purpose. There was an agreement to pay an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent in settlement of her claim. A cheque was W.P.(C).NO.14466 OF 2011 : 3 : also issued to discharge that liability. According to respondents 2 and 3, the present attempt of the petitioner is to wriggle out of all the obligations under the agreement. For that purpose false and vexatious allegations have been raised against the police official/first respondent. 6. The 1st respondent takes the stand that the 1st respondent had not compelled the parties to come to any settlement. They had settled their disputes outside the police station. False allegations are being raised against the police. 7. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that presence of the petitioner is not required at the police station in connection with any case. The petitioner, probably to avoid the stipulations in the agreement between him and the 2nd respondent is attempting to raise false allegations. At any rate, the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent has got to be settled by the parties by initiating proper proceedings. The police do not require the presence of the petitioner at the police station now. According to the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, respondent No.2 W.P.(C).NO.14466 OF 2011 : 4 : shall take such action as is necessary in accordance with law to get the marriage dissolved and to recover the amount due from the petitioner. They do not look up to the police for any assistance for the settlement of the disputes between them and the petitioner. 8. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are satisfied that no specific further directions are necessary. 9. In the result: a. This petition is dismissed. b. We record specifically the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 1st respondent that the petitioner is not required at the police station in connection with any crime pending investigation or petition pending enquiry. We record the submissions of the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 that they do not seek any assistance from the police now and that appropriate action in accordance with law shall be initiated by them before appropriate fora for settlement of the matrimonial disputes between the parties. W.P.(C).NO.14466 OF 2011 : 5 : c. No further directions in these circumstances are necessary. Sd/= R. BASANT, JUDGE. Sd/= K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. cl /true copy/ P.S. to Judge.