IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33709 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R. RAVIKUMAR, S/O. RAJASEKHARAN, SIVALAYAM, BALARAMAPURAM, ADIYANNUR VILLAGE, NEYYATINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR SMT.G.AMBILI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAURAM (RURAL). 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL) 3. MR. SIVATHANU, S/O. ARUNACHALAM, VARVILAKATHU VEEDU, OTTATHERUVU, BALARAMAPURAM, ADIYANNUR VILLAGE, NEYYATINKARA TALUK. ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R3 SRI.V.VIJULAL FOR R3 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL – R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 33709/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT ON 1.11.2000. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY R3 ON 19.7.2008. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 11.11.2008. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATINKARA DATED 23.11.2008. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY R3. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RURAL S.P. EXT.P7(a) – TRUE PHOTOGRAPH. EXT.P7(b) - TRUE PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P7(c) - TRUE PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P7(d) - TRUE PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P7(e) - TRUE PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER DT. 19.11.2008. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE CONCESSION CERTIFICATE. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R3(a) – TRUE COPY OF FIR DATED 19.11.2008 IN CRIME NO.493/2008 OF BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION. EXT.R3(b) – TRUE COPY OF DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 6.8.1997. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 33709 OF 2008-K ----------------------------------------- Dated 5th December, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this Court, alleging that he is being harassed by the 2nd respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Balaramapuram, at the instance of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has taken on rent a building owned by the 3rd respondent. The said respondent has entered into an agreement for sale of that property to him. Because of the default from the part of the 3rd respondent, the sale did not take place. While so, it appears, the 3rd respondent filed a petition before the 2nd respondent and based on that petition, the petitioner has been served with Ext.P3 notice, purportedly issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. The said provision can be invoked only as part of the investigation into a cognizable offence. The subject mentioned in Ext.P3 would show that it is concerning the eviction of a tenanted WPC 33709/08 2 building. The police have no authority or jurisdiction to interfere in that dispute and the very issuance of Ext.P3 is a harassment. The petitioner submits, later he was attacked by the 3rd respondent's son on 19.11.2008. He got himself admitted in the hospital and gave a statement pointing out the offence committed by the 3rd respondent's son. But, the police are not taking any effective action to book the culprits. Instead of that, they have registered a false crime against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner prays for appropriate directions against the 2nd respondent not to harass him. 2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, denying all the allegations and averments of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner is at fault and his son has been attacked by the petitioner. So, a crime was registered by the police against the petitioner. As a counter blast, a complaint has been filed by the petitioner against his son, it is submitted. 3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that when a petition was received from the 3rd respondent against the petitioner, he was asked to appear before the police, by issuing Ext.P3 WPC 33709/08 3 notice. The petitioner has chosen not to appear. The form for notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C was wrongly used. But, the learned Government Pleader denies the allegations of the petitioner regarding harassment by the police. It is also submitted that the police have no intention to harass the petitioner. In view of the said submission, the Writ Petition is closed, but without prejudice to the powers of the police to investigate into any cognizable offence reported. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Nm/