IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14664 of 2010(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- LEELAMANI,AGED 52,W/O.PRABHAKARAN, DEEPA BHAVAN,MANNAKUDY,ANCHAL P.O, CHITHIRAPURAM. NOW RESIDING AT SREECHAKRAM APARTMENT,FLAT NO.51 GURUVAYOOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.JOHNY SRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT,THRISSUR. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, GURUVAYOOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. VIMAL JITH, S/O.MUKUNDAN NAIR,KAKKARATH HOUSE,EDAMOOTAM. THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.14664 of 2010-G ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-- “i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner in any manner and ii) to direct the Ist respondent to take action against the 2nd respondent on the basis of Exhibit P3 representation submitted by the petitioner.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:--The husband of the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.1 lakh from the 3rd respondent as personal loan. He executed a promissory note. The husband of the petitioner could not repay the amount borrowed since he spent huge amount for his treatment. The 3rd respondent filed a false complaint to the 2nd respondent against the husband of the petitioner. It is stated that the 2nd respondent abused the petitioner and compelled the petitioner to execute an agreement in favour of the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent threatened the petitioner that he will implicate them in WPC No.14664/2010 -2- criminal case and will not allow them to live at Guruvayoor. 3. Learned Government Pleader, on instruction, would submit that a complaint was received from the 3rd respondent and that the petitioner will not be called. It is submitted that there is no crime registered against the husband of the petitioner. In view of the fact that the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner will not be called we allow the writ petition and direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner in any manner. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS