IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33511 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- G.BALACHANDRAN, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, G.P.HOUSE, PUTHENCHANTHAI, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KOLLAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. C.S.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, RETIRED DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DEVIKRIPA, MYTHRI NAGAR, B-17, VALIYA VILA, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.CHARISHMA FOR R5 DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R6 SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE FOR R6 SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN FOR R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33511 of 2010(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.9401/2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.691.97 DATED 23.07.1999 PASSED BY JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE II ATTINGAL. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.07.1998 IN O.P.NO.12214/98 D. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE TELEGRAM TO THE DGP. /TRUE COPY/ R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.33511 of 2010-L ***************************** Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining of police harassment and issue of directions to respondents 1 to 5 to ensure that the police officials do not vex and harass him at the instance of the 6th respondent, a retired high ranking police official. 2. According to the petitioner, the 6th respondent was guilty of committing criminal offences against the petitioner and his wife. Prosecution was launched. It ultimately ended in conviction. The conviction was upheld by all courts upto the Supreme Court. According to the petitioner, the 6th respondent, who is a very influential person, prevailed upon the Government to commute/remit the punishment imposed to him. This obliged the petitioner to approach this Court and this Court set aside the order of remission granted in favour of the 6th respondent. 3. Appeals were preferred against that order of the learned Single Judge by the 6th respondent as well as the State. According to the petitioner, the Bench which was hearing the W.P(C) No.33511 of 2010-L 2 appeal wanted to ascertain whether parties can settle their disputes and the petitioner can compound the offences alleged against the 6th respondent. The petitioner is not willing for any such composition, asserts the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that there was a concerted attempt to vex and harass the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner was not willing to compound the offences alleged against the 6th respondent. It is contended that succumbing to the influence wielded by the 6th respondent, the 4th and 5th respondents took the petitioner into custody and detained him at the Sakthikulangara Police Station. There, he was allegedly compelled to affix his signature on some blank sheets in a book. The petitioner aired an apprehension in the petition that such signatures are likely to be misused by the 6th respondent to make it appear that the petitioner has settled the disputes and compounded the offences allegedly committed by the 6th respondent against him. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court seeking issue of directions to the respondent police officers to desist from their attempt to vex and harass him. 4. The 6th respondent has entered appearance. According to the 6th respondent, the allegations are totally false. W.P(C) No.33511 of 2010-L 3 The 6th respondent submits that the appeals have been decided in favour of the 6th respondent and that there is no merit in the contention that the 6th respondent had made any attempt to obtain signatures of the petitioner in blank papers to enable him to use the same to succeed in the appeals, which were pending before the Division Bench. 5. The learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 to 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that it is true that a complaint was received from one Krishnamma, allegedly a neighbour of the petitioner. That complaint was registered as a petition. No crime was registered. The petitioner and the said Krishnamma were called to the police station. An attempt was made to ensure that the parties settle their disputes. They did not. Theirs was a civil dispute. Parties were directed to approach the civil court. The parties including the petitioner, were asked to affix their signatures in the petition registered. The petitioner is relying upon that innocuous circumstance to raise false and untenable allegations against the 6th respondent as also the other police officials. 6. It is now evident that the signature was obtained in the petition register. We do not think it necessary to delve W.P(C) No.33511 of 2010-L 4 deeper into the question as to whether it was a blank of the register or the signature was obtained after entries were made in the register. At any rate, we do not find any merit in the contention that signatures were obtained in order to enable the 6th respondent to falsely claim that the dispute was settled and the offences were compounded by the petitioner. 7. We are not, in these circumstances, persuaded to agree that any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can, need or deserve to be issued. 8. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/