IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33580 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.C.SUJA, W/O. P.R. DANAVAN, THE PROPRIETRESS MARGIN FREE SUPER MARKET, KEDAMANGHALAM, N. PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT: --------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)NO. 33580/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (RURAL), ALUVA. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLIANT LODGED BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: ANNEXURE R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24.10.08. ANNEXURE R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, DATED 8.9.08. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.33580 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is running a Margin Free Super Market at Kedamangalam in North Paravur. She is a native of Kothamangalam, and is residing along with her parents. This Writ Petition is filed, alleging harassment at the instance of the Paravur Police. The petitioner submits, in September, 2008, a Constable from Paravur Police Station came and inquired about the whereabouts of her husband. He was dissatisfied with the reply of the petitioner that her husband is out of station. The Constable threatened her with dire consequences, for not disclosing the details of her husband. She was given the phone number and was directed to telephone to that number. Since the petitioner did not oblige, another Police Officer came to her shop on 21.9.2007 and created a scene there. She was threatened with dire consequences, for not bringing her husband before the Police Station. The petitioner submits, thereafter, every now and W.P.(C)No.33580/08 -2- then, police men are sent to her shop and she and her employees are being harassed. The aggrieved petitioner, has therefore preferred Exhibit P1 representation before the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aluva, which was followed by Exhibit P2 representation before the Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner alleges, the superior Police Officers did not take any effective action to prevent the harassment from the part of the Paravur Police. Under some pretext or other, the police men from Paravur Police Station are frequenting her business premises. In the above background, this Writ petition was filed, seeking a direction to the respondent, not to harass her. 2. The Sub Inspector of Police, North Paravur has filed a statement, in which it is submitted that the petitioner's husband Danavan is a criminal who is involved in more than 35 criminal cases and 10 civil cases. The petitioner is a smart companion of her husband and it is alleged that she encouraged her husband to commit various offences. It is also submitted that she is also involved in Crime No.37/01 registered by the Kozhinjambara W.P.(C)No.33580/08 -3- Police under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Her husband is also known as Danaseelan and Venu. He is a dozeir criminal with D.C.No.KLE(R400). The whereabouts of such a criminal has to be inquired into and ascertained every month by the Station House Officer. As part of the said exercise, the petitioner was approached to give the details of her husband. But, she has failed to answer the questions put to her. Whenever inquiries are made about her husband, the petitioner immediately rushes to the Sessions Court, seeking anticipatory bail or else she will file a complaint before the Director General of Police. The strategy of the petitioner is to prevent investigation against her husband. The Sub Inspector of Police has also produced Annexures R1(a) and R1(b). Annexure R1(a) is a complaint filed by the petitioner before the Director General of Police on 24.10.2008. Annexure R1(b) is the copy of an application made by one Smt.Vigi Jackson under the Right to Information Act seeking information regarding the criminal activities of the petitioner's husband. The police denies the allegations of the petitioner regarding the harassment. They say, they are only discharging their duty of inquiring about W.P.(C)No.33580/08 -4- the whereabouts of a dozeir criminal. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations made in the statement filed by the respondent-Sub Inspector of Police. She submits, Vigi Jackson is a tenant of the petitioner's building. There are several litigations between them. At her instance, the police is harassing the petitioner. It is evident from Annexure R1(b). The crime registered by the Kozhinjambara Police is based on false allegations made by a building tenant of her husband. The petitioner submits, the criminal cases were registered against her husband during 1976 and the trial of the cases were already over and to the best of her knowledge, he was exonerated in all of them. The grounds stated by the respondent in his statement are not sufficient to unnecessarily harass the petitioner, it is submitted. 4. If the petitioner's husband is a dozeir criminal, the police would have to inquire about his whereabouts from time to time. It is done as part of the duty of the police, to maintain law and order. It may be irritating to the petitioner, but police have to do that, so that others can live in peace. The allegations of W.P.(C)No.33580/08 -5- the petitioner that she is being harassed are denied by the police. The police can normally expect to get the whereabouts of her missing husband mainly from her. Therefore, we feel that this Court cannot issue any direction against the police not to go to her shop or to inquire about her husband. If any visit from the part of the police exceeds the limit and their actions infringe any of the rights of the petitioner, she can work out her remedies against it by invoking the ordinary remedies available to her under law before the competent civil court or criminal court. This Court cannot issue any general direction as prayed for by the petitioner invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. dsn