IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22330 of 2011(M) -------------------------- .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAMANAN, S/O. ACHUTHAN, NALAMPATTUPARAMBU, PANAMBUKAD, VALLARPADAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY) SMT.LAISA B.JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULAVUKAD POLICE STATION, MULAVUKAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM. 3. N.A.SIVADASAN, S/O. AYYAPPAN, NALAMPATTUPARAMBU, PANAMBUKAD, VALLARPADAM. ADV. SRI.SIBI THOMAS JACOB FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTO COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2170/2003 DT. 7-5-2003 OF THE ERNAKULAM SUB REGISTRY EXT.P2 PHOTO COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. NO. 37/2007 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3 PHOTO COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN O.S. NO. 37/2007 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P4 PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 15-7-2008 IN O.S. NO. 37/07 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P5 PHOTO COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL FILED DURING THE YEAR 2007 EXT.P6 PHOTO COPY OF THE STATEMENT DT. 11-8-2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 PHOTO COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 12-8-2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS; NIL (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 22330 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner has approached this court seeking directions against what he describes as harassment by the Sub inspector of Police, the first respondent at the behest of the third respondent. On considering this writ petition for admission we directed the Government Pleader who took notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 to seek instructions from those respondents as to the correctness of the accusations and also as to what action if any has been taken on Ext.P7 complaint submitted by the petitioner. Today the third respondent on entering appearance through Advocate sought for time to file a counter affidavit. The learned Govt. Pleader submitted on the basis of instructions received pursuant to order dated 17-8-2011 that the accusations of harassment levelled against the police are without basis. WP(C). 22330/11 -2- According to the Government Pleader, the third respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner. It was to the effect that while the third respondent was in the hospital, the petitioner uttered obscene words against the third respondent's wife and daughter. The complaint was also to the effect that a pathway which provides access to the third respondent's property was blocked by the petitioner. The attendance of the petitioner and the third respondent was sought for by the police as part of enquiry into the above complaint. The third respondent did not turn up as he was in the hospital. The petitioner also did not turn up, but he filed a statement before the police. The attendance of the petitioner and the third respondent is necessary for completing the enquiry into that complaint and there will not any harassment. Both of them will be interrogated and thereafter they will be allowed to go. 2. Having considered the submissions of the learned Govt. Pleader, we are of the view that no case is made out WP(C). 22330/11 -3- by the petitioner for issuance of the direction sought for. The action of the petitioner cannot be branded as harassment. However, even as we decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition, we direct the first respondent to issue notice to the petitioner and also to the third respondent so as to secure their attendance in the police station in connection with the complaint filed by third respondent against the petitioner. Similarly, there will be a general direction that whenever the attendance of the petitioner is required by the police in connection with any complaint or petition which may be filed in future by third respondent, then also notice should be sent to the petitioner under Section 160 Cr. P.C. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-