IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16383 of 2011(W) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. PRAMOD, S/O.RAJASEKHARAN, AGED 36 YEARS, PADMA NIVAS, ALANGAD, PARAVUR TALUK. 2. PADMAVATHY, W/O.RAJASEKHARAN, AGED 70 YEARS, PADMA NIVAS, ALANGAD, PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR SMT.DIJI.K.DASAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) ALUVA - 683 101. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA - 683 101. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION - 683 101. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 16383/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12/06/2011. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT P2(a):COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED THEREOF FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.16383 of 2011-W ***************************** Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioners are a son and mother. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner had cohabited for six long year with a woman. There are two children born in that relationship also. According to the petitioners, on the complaint of that lady, who has not been arrayed as party, the police is harassing the petitioners. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners have come to this Court. 2. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions from respondents 1 to 3, submits that the petitioners are guilty of gross suppression of relevant facts. Shiny, the said woman, has filed the petition before the Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and interim orders have been passed by the learned Magistrate restraining the 1st respondent from committing domestic violence against the said lady. Subsequently the said lady had complained that the 1st petitioner has violated the directions in the order. The police is bound to give assistance to the said W.P(C) No.16383 of 2011-W 2 Shiny to enforce the interim order of protection. The learned Government Pleader submits that as the 1st petitioner indulged in culpable conduct, a crime has been registered as Crime No.269 of 2011 of Binanipuram Police Station on 15.06.2011. Evidently after coming to know of all the relevant facts, this petition against police harassment was filed on 17.06.2011, points out the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader further undertakes categorically that the police shall not take any action other than action permitted by law for the enforcement of the interim order passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also for the due investigation of crime 269 of 2011. All such proceedings shall be taken only against the 1st petitioner. Against the 2nd petitioner, at present no action is contemplated. In these circumstances, no directions are liable to be issued, submits the learned Government Pleader. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in reply submits that the plight of the petitioners is miserable. The said Shiny had taken up a stand that she is not the wife of the 1st petitioner. Disputes exist between the 1st petitioner and the said Shiny. She has chosen to approach various authorities. The 1st W.P(C) No.16383 of 2011-W 3 petitioner wanted to ascertain where exactly the said Shiny with the children of the 1st petitioner were residing. The attempt made by him to trace the said lady and his children are mis described to be culpable acts now. In any view of the matter, the police is not entitled to vex and harass the petitioners on the basis of such alleged complaint received from the said Shiny. The petitioners do not seek any directions against legal action for the enforcement of the interim order of protection or against steps for investigation in the crime registered. But they may not be unnecessarily vexed and harassed by the police. This in short is the plea of the petitioners, submits the learned counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are not guilty of any suppression and all the relevant details are revealed in Ext.P2 produced along with this Writ Petition. 4. We have taken note of all the relevant circumstances. We have taken note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader that information about the interim order of protection and the registration of the crime have been suppressed from this Court in this petition filed. We do not think it necessary to delve deeper into that controversy in the light of the stand taken by W.P(C) No.16383 of 2011-W 4 the respondents and the petitioners. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 that the 2nd petitioner is not required in connection with any case now by the police. We record the further submission of the learned Government Pleader that against the 1st petitioner, only action in accordance with law for the enforcement of the interim direction passed by the learned Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and steps for due investigation of crime 269 of 2011 of Binanipuram Police Station alone shall be taken. Respondents 1 to 3 are certainly entitled under law to take such action in these circumstances. Recording the submissions of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, we are satisfied that the further proceedings can be discontinued. 5. In the result: a) We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that no action is contemplated or shall be taken against the 2nd petitioner by the police and that action against the 1st petitioner shall be taken strictly in accordance with law to comply with the interim order of protection and for the investigation of Crime No.269 of 2011; W.P(C) No.16383 of 2011-W 5 b) Recording those submissions, this Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/