IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15969 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUTTISANKARA GUPTAN, S/O.APPU GUPTAN, AGED 65 YEARS, VALAPPIL THODI HOUSE, KATAMPAZHIPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SIVASANKARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN THARAKAN, KAPALI HOUSE, AZHIYANUR, PERINGOTTUKURISI DESOM, PARASSERY POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONGAD POLICE STATION, KONGAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERPLASSERY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) R2 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15969 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES TO THE PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE EXECUTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 14/10/2010. P3 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11/06/2011FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE smvd R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.15969 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining of harassment by the police. He prays that directions under Article 226 of the Constitution may be issued to put an end to such harassment. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the managing partner of a partnership firm doing business in money lending. The first respondent did have some transactions with the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the first respondent has approached the police and the police, succumbing to the influence of the first respondent, is indulging in vexatious and malicious harassment of the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition. 3. Respondent No.1 has entered appearance through Counsel. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the allegations are totally false. The WPC No.15969/2011 2 petitioner is in the habit of filing such petitions against persons like the first respondent. In these circumstances, this petition, filed with the only intention to harass the first respondent may be dismissed, submits the learned counsel. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that no complaint of the first respondent has been received by the police. The police have not registered any crime against the petitioner herein. His presence is not required at the Police Station at all. The police do not want to summon him to the Police Station in connection with any matter now. If in future, such presence of the petitioner were required at the Police Station, proper notice shall be issued by the police to him. In these circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioner is without any basis. This writ petition may in these circumstances be dismissed, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. The Counsel for the first respondent prays for time to file counter affidavit, but we feel that in the circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to wait for WPC No.15969/2011 3 such counter affidavit. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner is not required to attend the Police Station in connection with any pending matter. His presence shall not be insisted by the police, it is undertaken categorically. If such presence were required in future, proper notice shall be issued to the petitioner before his presence is insisted. 6. In the light of the above submissions of the learned Government Pleader which we accept, we are satisfied that no further specific directions are necessary under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. SD/- R.BASANT JUDGE SD/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE TRUE COPY css/ P.S.TO JUDGE