IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33548 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANMADHAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN, VASUDEVA BHAVANATHIL, EZHUKONE CHERRY, EZHUKONE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.C.K.PRASAD SRI.T.S.ANURAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691305. 2. SAFIYA BEEVI, W/O.MUHAMMED RAFI, APSHANA MANZILIL, NILAMEL MURIYIL, NILAMEL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691535. BY SR.G.P.SRI.T.P. SAJID THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1. THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED HAVING NO.2504 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE DATED 02.07.2003. EXHIBIT-P2. THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND RAX RECEIPT NO.0915575 FOR THE YEAR 2010-2011 DATED 15.03.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P3. THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT NO.15632 DATED NIL ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ;NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE CL PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C).NO.33548 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. On considering this writ petition seeking direction against the alleged police harassment at the instance of the second respondent, we directed the senior Government Pleader, who took notice on behalf of the first respondent to seek instructions from that respondent. 2. Today, Sri. T.P. Sajid, learned senior Government Pleader, submitted that accusations of harassment levelled against the first respondent are without basis. A complaint was received from the second respondent against the petitioner. The complaint was to the effect that in 2003 a document purportedly a sale deed was executed by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner. Though styled as a sale deed, the understanding was that upon payment of the loan amount with interest, re- conveyance will be executed. According to the complainant, even though the entire amount inclusive of interest was paid off, the petitioner was unwilling to execute re-conveyance. Petitioner's attendance was required only as a part of enquiry into the W.P.(C).NO.33548 OF 2011 : 2 : above complaint. This action cannot be branded as harassment. 3. Sri. Shabu Sreedharan- the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint was a frivolous one and that it was a pucca sale document that was executed; even mutation of names was effected. The police are harassing the petitioner without any justifiable reason. The only question which we are called upon to decide is whether the action of the police in insisting on the attendance of the petitioner can be branded as harassment. We have no difficulty to answer that question in the negative. We decline the relief sought for. However, we direct the first respondent and officers under him to issue notice to the petitioner under Section 160 Cr.P.C in case attendance of the petitioner is required in connection with any enquiry or investigation. We also record the submission of the senior Government Pleader that no crime has been registered against the petitioner. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl