IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29217 of 2011(B) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SHERIF MOHAMMED, S/O. MUHAMMED RESIDING AT ADUKAM KUNIYA PO, PERIYA VILLAGE KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SMT.P.M.SHIJI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, TRIVANDRUM 695 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KANHANGAD POLICE STATION- 671 315, KASARAGODE. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BEKAL POLICE STATION 680- 605. KASARAGODE. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29217 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.835/99 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, UDUMA DATED 20/03/99. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PANAYAL VILLAGE DATED 19/11/10. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PALLIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 05/06/10. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.31621/10 DATED 13/10/11 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.29217 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner who claims to be the “Ustad” in Adukam Moideen Mosque and Madrasa at Panayal Village, Kasaragod District has approached this Court seeking the directions against what is described by him as harassment by respondents 2 and 3 officers of police. On considering this Writ Petition for admission, we directed the Government Pleader to seek instructions from the concerned respondent as to the correctness of accusations of police harassment contained in the Writ Petition. Today on the basis of instructions received Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, the learned senior Government Pleader submitted that accusations of police harassment levelled in this Writ Petition are without any W. P. C. No.29217 of 2011 -2- basis. Several complaints are being received against the petitioner from the local public. The petitioner claims to be conducting a spiritual centre. He is offering treatment for many diseases and is collecting money from the local public. Public who believe that they have been cheated by the petitioner are submitting complaints. When complaints are received from the public, the Police necessarily have to conduct enquiry. The enquiry conducted by the police into complaints received against the petitioner cannot be branded as harassment. In fact one crime as Crime No.727/11 has been registered against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC. 2. Sri.M.Ramesh Chander, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to Ext.P4 judgment in a Writ Petition filed against the petitioner who was the 6th respondent therein. He drew our attention to para 4 of Ext.P4 judgment and submitted that this Court has clearly W. P. C. No.29217 of 2011 -3- found that materials are not available before this Court to come to a conclusion that the activities carried on by the petitioner herein are illegal and against the terms of Ext.P9 guidelines issued by the Government. The parties who failed in getting relief against the petitioner are now prevailing upon the police to harass the petitioner regularly so that a situation will be created whereby the petitioner will be compelled to close down his activities. Sri.Ramesh Chander also referred to para 2 of Ext.P4 and submitted that an enquiry was conducted through the senior Medical Officer of the Health Department and even such enquiries reveal that the petitioner herein is not indulging in any illegal activities. It was also found that the activities of the petitioner herein cannot give rise to any communal disturbance as has been alleged in Ext.P4 Writ Petition. 3. We have given our anxious considerations to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. The only question W. P. C. No.29217 of 2011 -4- that we should decide in this Writ Petition is whether there is warrant for issuance of the directions sought for against the alleged police harassment and whether the action of the police can be branded as harassment. According to us, when complaints are received against the petitioner, it is the duty of the police to conduct enquiry into the complaints. As part of the enquiry the police officers conducting the enquiry may have to come to petitioner's place or may have to insist on the attendance of the petitioner in the police station. Such acts cannot be branded as harassment. 4. We decline the reliefs sought for. But we dispose of the Writ Petition issuing a specific direction that whenever the police requires the attendance of the petitioner in connection with any enquiry or investigation, the police shall issue notice to him under Section 160 Cr.P.C. As far as possible interrogation of the petitioner if it becomes necessary should be conducted in the petitioner's place. The W. P. C. No.29217 of 2011 -5- police shall not interfere with conduct of prayers. It should however be ensured that the prayers in the Mosque where the petitioner is the “Ustad” and classes in the Madrasa attached in the above Mosque are conducted smoothly. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/-