IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31404 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.K.PAREED, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KUNJIN PILLAI, VELLAPPILLIL HOUSE, RAYONPURAM, KANJIRAKKAD, M.C.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO HOME, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) ALUVA-683 101. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA-683 101. 4. V.L.ANTONY, S/O.LONAPPAN, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAITHARAM P.O., N.PARUR-683 513, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. JESSY FRANCIS, W/O.V.J.FRANCIS, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAITHARAM P.O., N.PARUR-683 513, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SR.G.P. SRI. M.K. ABOOBACKER FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.8665/2009 DATED 31/3/2009. EXHIBIT P2: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATON DATED 13/1/2011. EXHIBIT P3: THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/5/2011. EXHIBIT P4: THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATON ISSUED BY THE BANK TO M/S.AGRO TECH INDUSTRIES, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DT.15/11/2011. EXHIBIT P5: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE DATED 19/11/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE CL PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C).NO.31404 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. On considering this writ petition containing accusations of police harassment, we directed Sri. M.K. Aboobacker- Senior Government Pleader who took notice on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 to seek instructions from those respondents as to the correctness of the accusations of harassment. Today upon instructions Sri. M.K. Aboobacker submitted that accusations of police harassment are incorrect. The petitioner's wife had availed a substantial loan from the Oriental Bank of Commerce offering immovable properties belonging to the 4th respondent and his brother one Francis, who is the husband of the 5th respondent. The loan became sticky and the Bank initiated proceedings against the properties for recovery of the amount. On being confronted with the proceedings by the Bank against the properties of 4th and 5th respondents, the 5th respondent filed a complaint before the 2nd respondent against the petitioner and that complaint was made over by the 2nd W.P.(C).NO.31404 OF 2011 : 2 : respondent to the third respondent. The third respondent summoned the petitioner as well as the complainants only for the purpose of exploring the possibility of a settlement of the whole issue. As no offence was made out, the police have not registered any crime against the petitioner. The police no longer require the attendance of the petitioner in connection with any investigation or enquiry. 2. Sri.Ramesh Chander - learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not correct to say that the petitioner is not taking steps for liquidating the liability due to the Oriental Bank of Commerce. According to him, the matter is before the DRT and in the DRT a one time settlement proposal was given to the applicant bank by the petitioner and the Bank as per Ext.P4 accepted the offer. The entire liability will be discharged by the petitioner himself and the properties belonging to the party respondents are not going to be proceeded against. We record the rival submissions addressed at the bar. The only question we are called upon to decide is whether the action of the police officer in insisting on the W.P.(C).NO.31404 OF 2011 : 3 : attendance of the petitioner can be branded as harassment. That question in our view can be answered only in the negative. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition recording all the submissions addressed at the bar. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl