IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 28TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23490 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- MUHAMMAD BASHEER HAJI, PERUMTHARA HOUSE PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, MATHILAKAM P.O, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, HOME DEPARTMENT REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR 680001. 3. S.I OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM, MATHILAKAM P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680685. 4. SAJIDA P.O, D/O.PAREED P.M, PUTHIYA VEETTIL HOUSE, THALIKULAM P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680569. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23490 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE TALAK NOTICE DATED 15.04.2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EDASSERY JAMA MAZJID COMMITTEE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE ln PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23490 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction, for protection against what is described as 'harassment' by the police, particularly by the 3rd respondent, S.I. of police, Mathilakam. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 31.8.2011, learned Government Pleader Smt.C.M.Charisma obtained instructions and she submitted that the accusations of harassment are baseless. According to learned Government Pleader, the 4th respondent is the wife of the petitioner and she filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 498 A of IPC. The above complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) to the 3rd respondent, as Crime No.409/11. The petitioner was arrested by the 3rd respondent in connection with the above crime. Thereafter, the investigation was completed and final report was submitted. After the submission of the final report in 2 W.P.(C) No.23490 of 2011 the above crime, the 3rd respondent never insisted on the attendance of the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed on account of vengeance against the 3rd respondent who had occasioned to arrest the petitioner. Even though the submissions of learned Government Pleader were opposed very strongly by Mr.Binoy Ram V., learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not think that the action of the 3rd respondent so far can be branded as harassment. We dispose of the writ petition issuing direction to the 3rd respondent that, if in future, the attendance of the petitioner is required in connection with any enquiry or investigation, a notice under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. should be sent to the petitioner. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/