IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 30681 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ALI, S/O.SATHUKKU, CHAKKANTEVALAPPIL, CHERUVALLOOR P.O., NANNAMUKKU, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGARAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505. 2. SAJITHA, D/O.MUHAMMED, MOORKAMNJALIL HOUSE, KAPPOOR, OTTAPPALAM, PIN-679 552. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.ALEX M .THOMBRA R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN (PALAKKAD) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30681 of 2010(I) ---------------------------------- APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT ----------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE ORDER IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.1685/2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 24.3.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.30681 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 1st respondent not to harass the petitioner and his 8 year old son. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. The petitioner has married the 2nd respondent and two children are born in the wedlock. There is a crime registered against the petitioner. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail and Ext.P1 is the order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. After a month of taking bail from this Court, the 2nd respondent filed a false complaint stating that the petitioner is manhandling her. On the basis of that complaint, the petitioner was arrested by the 1st respondent and he was brutally manhandled. The petitioner was released on the next day at 7 p.m. At the time of release, the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to handover the daughter to the wife and W.P.C.No.30681 of 2010 2 to take the elder son with him. It is further directed that as and when directed by the first respondent, the petitioner should produce his son before the police station to show to the 2nd respondent. When the child is produced before the police station, the 1st respondent threatened the child stating that the child should go with his mother, otherwise he will arrest him and detain him in the police station. Several times, the 1st respondent allegedly threatened the eight year old child. Now the child is refusing to come with the petitioner to the police station due to the harassment of the 1st respondent. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner is an accused in crime No.68/2010 of Perumbadappu police station under Sections 498A read with 34 I.P.C. The learned Government Pleader denies the allegation that the 1st respondent called the petitioner along with his child to the police station and threatened them. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also submits that one child is with the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent also does not approve of the police calling the child to the police station. W.P.C.No.30681 of 2010 3 5. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the 1st respondent will not interfere in the family dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent nor will harass the petitioner or the child as alleged in the writ petition. However, we make it clear that this does not mean that the petitioner is freed from the conditions imposed on him under Ext.P1, if it is otherwise applicable to him. No doubt, it is pointed out that that relates to another police station. We dispose of the writ petition as above. 6. Needless to say, the judgment will not stand in the way of the police taking action in accordance with law against any cognizable offence if any such situation arises. We also make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of either the petitioner or the second respondent approaching the Family Court seeking appropriate order for custody of the children. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.30681 of 2010 4 W.P.C.No.30681 of 2010 5 W.P.C.No.30681 of 2010 6 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010