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. 19445 of 2011(E) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ FEBIN K.XAVIER , AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.K.K.XAVIER, KOONAMPILAV HOUSE, THYKATTUSSERY KARA, THALORE PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION THRISSUR-680001 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION,THRISSUR-680001 3. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 * ADDL. R4:- K. M. ANTONY, S/O MATHEW, KIZHAKOODAN, THOLORE, THRISSUR *[ADDL R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R4 AS PER ORDER DT.22/07/11] ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) FOR R-4 SMT.R.RAJITHA FOR R-4 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19445 of 2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15/03/10 FILED BY THE PETITIOENR TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLDGEMENT ISSUED BY ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08/07/10 IN WRIT PETITION NO.20813/10 EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON. COURT IN CRL. M.C.1790/11 EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN ANTOCIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION 587/11 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM DT. 19/04/11 EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN W.P.C.13593/11. EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXTS EXT.R4(a):- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.15/01/10 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO ASST. LABOUR OFFICER, IRINJALAKKUDA. EXT.R4(b):- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.22/07/09 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR. EXT.R4(c):- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 01/06/11 FILED BY ME BEFORE TOWN WEST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.19445 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J The petitioner is seeking direction to respondents 1 and 2, not to harass or threaten him or his family members unnecessarily. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent had called the petitioner to the station house, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the 4th respondent, with respect to a subject matter in which the petitioner had no connection at all. The 2nd respondent requested the petitioner to appear before him on various dates, without issuing any notice under law. It is also alleged that the 2nd respondent is making threat to the effect of arresting the petitioner, if he fails to appear. 2. According to the petitioner the highhanded actions from the side of the 2nd respondent, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, is only a continuation of the harassments W. P. C. No.19445 of 2011 -2- caused to the petitioner at the instigation of a police officer who is keeping vengeance against the petitioner. The petitioner had filed a vigilance complaint against the 4th respondent, investigation of which was entrusted to Sri.P.P.N Unnirajan, the then Dy. S.P. of Vigilance, Thrissur. Since the 4th respondent and the said Police Officer were close friends, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 complaint before the Honourable Minister of the state for Home, requesting to handover investigation of the vigilance case to some other officer. It is evident that in Ext.P1 complaint the petitioner raised imputations against various illegal activities of the above said police officer. Ext.P1 contained allegations that the said officer is involved in various illegitimate and corruptive activities. According to the petitioner, immediately after submission of Ext.P1, the petitioner was requested to be present before the Sub Inspector of Police, Puthukkad, in connection with a purported enquiry based on an allegation that the petitioner had manipulated chassis number of a Maruti Car. Being met with constant W. P. C. No.19445 of 2011 -3- harassment from the side of the Sub Inspector of Police, Puthukkad, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.C.20813/10. In Ext.P3 judgment, the said Writ Petition was disposed of recording submissions of the Government Pleader to the effect that, the petitioner is not involved in any criminal case and that no crime is registered against him. 3. But in contradiction to the statement recorded in Ext.P3, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner at Puthukkad police station, alleging the very same offence, and the petitioner became compelled to approach this Court challenging the final reports submitted, by filing Crl. M.C. No.1790/11, under the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. In Ext.P4 order this court directed the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur to examine the records of the case and to file an affidavit with respect to veracity of the imputations made against the petitioner. It is stated that the above Crl. M.C. case is still pending disposal before this Court and a subsequent order was passed on 10-8-2011, observing that W. P. C. No.19445 of 2011 -4- there is prima facie evidence to the effect that the petitioner has been harassed by the police in a concocted case. This court directed the Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range, to conduct a further detailed enquiry into the affairs of that case and to file a report along with a translated copy of the 'case diary'. 4. It is stated that, apart from the above said case registered at Pudukkad Police Station, an attempt was made to implicate the petitioner in another case at the Kalady Police Station. The petitioner was compelled to approach the Sessions Court, Ernakulam seeking anticipatory bail. In Ext.P5 order passed in Crl. M. C. No. 587 of 2011 by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, the bail application was disposed of recording statement made to the effect that the petitioner is not implicated as accused in any case at Kalady Police Station. The petitioner also filed a writ petition - WP (C) No. 13593 of 2011 seeking direction against harassment from the side of the Circle Inspector of Police, Kalady. The said writ petition was disposed of through Ext.P6 judgment W. P. C. No.19445 of 2011 -5- on the basis of submissions made by learned Govt. Pleader, to the effect that the petitioner is not involved in any case registered at Kalady Police Station. 5. Grievance voiced in the present writ petition is regarding harassment from the side of the second respondent. In a counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is contended that the 4th respondent had submitted ExtR4(c) complaint before the second respondent raising allegations that the petitioner is making threat to the life of the 4th respondent, by engaging goondas and that there is constant threat and intimidation against life of the 4th respondent. However, in the counter affidavit filed, the 4th respondent had categorically denied the allegations to the effect that there is continued harassment from the side of different police officials is on the basis of interference of the above said Dy. S.P, Sri. P.P.N. Unnirajan. 6. When this writ petition came up for consideration, we directed the Government Pleader to seek instructions from the second respondent regarding veracity of the accusations W. P. C. No.19445 of 2011 -6- made. Smt. C.M. Charisma, learned Govt. Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 submitted that, there is no case registered against the petitioner by respondents 1 and 2. However, it is conceded that enquiries were made about the petitioner over telephone, in connection with the allegations contained in Ext. R4(c) complaint. Eventhough the petitioner was directed to be present in the station house, he has not turned up. It is conceded that the presence of the petitioner is not required at present for the purpose of any enquiry into the allegations in Ext.R4(c) complaint. It is also conceded that in case presence of the petitioner is required under any circumstance, proper notice will be issued as contemplated under Section 160 of Cr. P.C, for ensuring such appearance. 7. Considering the chequered history as narrated above and also considering the circumstances which led to the petitioner approaching this court as well as the Sessions Court on repeated occasions, we concur with the view expressed by the learned Judge in the order passed in Crl. W. P. C. No.19445 of 2011 -7- M.C. No. 1790 of 2011, dated 10-8-2011. But we take note of the fact that the petitioner had not impleaded the Police Officer against whom personal allegations are levelled, nor any relief is seen sought against any harassment from his side. However, we take note of the fact that by virtue of the directions issued in that Crl. M.C. Petition, the Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range has already been entrusted with a detailed enquiry. Hence we confine the issue involved in this writ petition only to the limited extent of the allegations made against respondents 1 and 2. 8. Sri. Santhosh P.Poduval, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent addressed arguments to the effect that any observation made in this writ petition will cause prejudice to his client, because he will be precluded from raising any subsequent complaint, in case the petitioner is causing any sort of threat or disturbance to his life or in case the petitioner indulge in any activity amounting to a criminal offence. 9. However, as observed above, in view of the W. P. C. No.19445 of 2011 -8- pendency of the Crl. M.C. petition we are not making any observations into the antecedence and history of the matter. With respect to the case at hand, since it is clarified by the learned Government Pleader that no criminal case is registered against the petitioner and his presence is not required for any purpose of enquiry, we close this writ petition recording such statement. We make it clear that if respondents 1 and 2 require presence of the petitioner for any purpose of inquiry/investigation into R4(c) complaint or for any other matter, they should issue notice to the petitioner under Section 160 of Cr. P.C. The writ petition is closed with the above observations. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns & ksv/- W. P. C. No.19445 of 2011 -9-