IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27569 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRAVEEN P.J., S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 26 YRS, INFOSYS LIMITED, HUSUR ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-100. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VANITHA CELL, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANITHA CELL, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031. 3. GERTRUDE GEORGE (RINI), INFOSYS LIMITED, HOSUR ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-100. SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.K. ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27569 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The petitioner, a Software Engineer with Infosys Limited at Bangalore, has approached this court complaining that at the instance of 3rd respondent who is his colleague in Infosys Limited, Bangalore, the respondents 1 and 2 are harassing him. Pursuant to our directions Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, learned senior Government Pleader has obtained instructions. Mr.Aboobacker submitted that the accusations of police harassment levelled against respondents 1 and 2 are absolutely frivolous. An E-mail complaint was received from the 3rd respondent by the 2nd respondent to the effect that the petitioner who was in love with the 3rd respondent and who had promised to marry her, has now cheated her by going back on his words. The complaint also alleged that promising to marry, on several occasions the petitioner has sexually harassed the 3rd respondent. It was in view of the seriousness of the complaint that the 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioner as well as to the 3rd respondent to appear for an enquiry. On 14.10.2011 the petitioner W.P.(C).27569/11 -2- accompanied by his father appeared before the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent had not turned up for enquiry and the enquiry was adjourned to 17.10.2011. The petitioner who was instructed to appear on 17.10.2011 has filed this present writ petition, on coming to know that the complaint was received by the police from the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it is not correct to say that the petitioner was in love with the 3rd respondent. The relationship between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent was not that of real love. The allegations of harassment contained in the E-mail complaint are false. 2. In the present jurisdiction the only question which we are called upon to decide is whether the action of the 2nd respondent in insisting on the attendance of the petitioner is harassment. We have no difficulty to answer the question in the negative. We do answer the question in the negative and decline the jurisdiction which is invoked. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb