IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2919 of 2011(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.V.SUNNY,S/O.VARKEY, AGED 48 YEARS PUTHUKUNNATHU HOUSE, P.O.NERIYAMANGALAM, CHEMBANKUZHY- 686 693. BY ADV. SRI.T.O.XAVIER. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER NERIYAMANGALAM – 686 693. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ADIMALI – 685 561. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. POULOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.2919 OF 2011(L) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has approached this court complaining that he is being unnecessarily harassed by the first respondent. 2. In view of this allegation, Government Pleader was directed to obtain instructions in the matter. According to the Government Pleader, petitioner is the first accused in O.R.No.1/201, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Adimaly. It is stated that the case was registered on the allegation that the petitioner and two others, who are also accused in the case, of having cut and removed a teak tree from the reserve forest. It is stated that as part of the investigation of the case, notice under Section 160 Cr.PC was issued to the petitioner and others and the petitioner did not respond to the said notice. Government Pleader submits that the purpose of filing this writ petition on the allegation that he is being harassed by the first respondent is to obstruct the investigation in the aforesaid case against the petitioner. Although petitioner pleads ignorance of what is stated by WPC.No. 2919/2011 :2 : the Government Pleader, fact remains that he is an accused in a forest offence. If that be so, the first respondent is entitled to summon the petitioner and question him as part of the investigation process. Therefore the allegation of harassment made by the petitioner is unwarranted and the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/