IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6341 of 2010(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ISMAIL ALIAS CHEKKU, S/O. MOOSA, OOROTHIYIL HOUSE, ATHRASSERY POST,OZHUR,TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPAKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, KALPAKANCHERRY,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, PAINGATHODI HOUSE,PANGU POST, KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.6341 of 2010-P ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court complaining harassment by police. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:- Petitioner's friend is employed in the Middle East. The 3rd respondent through his brother-in-law who happened to be a neighbour of the petitioner approached the friend of the petitioner employed in the Middle East for visa. The 3rd respondent alleges that he has paid Rs.80,000/- to the friend in the Middle East through his brother-in-law. It is further alleged by the 3rd respondent that the petitioner was also present at the time of the aforesaid monetary transaction. Thus, there is a monetary transaction. It is the case of the petitioner that he was summoned to the police station on four occasions for settling the false monetary claims. Petitioner submitted Ext.P1 complaint. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner WPC No.6341/2010 -2- and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. While the petitioner cannot be harassed without there being any crime registered against him, we make it clear that, if any crime is registered against the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 will be free to investigate the same, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS