IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38568 of 2010(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- REJI M.K.,REJI BHAVAN, THATTAYIL P.O,. MALLIKA MURI, ADOOR VIA., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT POLICE COMPLANITS AUTHORITY PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 645. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 645. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUMON POLICE STATION, KODUMON P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 691 555. 4. JEEJA,D/O.K.M.GEORGE, K.M.G.BHAVAN, KANNAMKARA,KIZHAKKETHIL, KADAMBANAD, ADOOR – 691 555. R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.38568/2010-U: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 09/11/2010 BEFORE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. EXT.P.3.A: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.38568 of 2010-U ***************************** Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition complaining about police harassment and seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondent No.3, who, according to the petitioner, is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner at the instance of his wife, the 4th respondent, herein. 2. The petitioner and the 4th respondent are spouses. They have a strained relationship. The 3rd respondent, a police official, succumbing to the influence of the 4th respondent and her father, who, it is alleged is an important ruling political party functionary, is alleged to be involved in vexatious and threatening conduct against the petitioner herein. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner had come to this Court with this petition. This petition was filed on 23.12.2010. The matter has been admitted on 06.01.2011 and is dragging on. 3. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions now submits that a crime was registered at the W.P(C) No.38568 of 2010-U 2 Kodumon police station on 29.12.2010 alleging the commission of offences under Section 498 A and 323 I.P.C by the petitioner herein. That crime No. 512 of 2010 was registered on the basis of a private complaint dated 23.12.2010, which was filed before the local Magistrate having jurisdiction and which was referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. According to the learned Government Pleader, the presence of the petitioner is required in that crime. There is no question of any harassment or vexation to the petitioner. The petitioner must appear before the police. Attempt to trace him cannot be reckoned as an attempt to vex or harass the petitioner, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this crime has been registered only subsequent to the filing of this petition. According to the petitioner, the very registration of that crime is only to facilitate continuance of vexation and harassment. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, clearly accepts that the petitioner has already secured an order of anticipatory bail in that crime. He has already complied with the conditions. The petitioner has to appear before the Investigating Officer once every week on all Wednesdays. He is W.P(C) No.38568 of 2010-U 3 so appearing also. But according to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is making use of such opportunity also to vex and harass the petitioner. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. If the petitioner has a grievance that the 3rd respondent is not permitting him to comply with the order granting anticipatory bail and is causing harassment to the petitioner when he so appears before the 3rd respondent to comply with the conditions of anticipatory bail, the petitioner must raise that grievance before the court which granted him anticipatory bail. The petitioner in that event can request that court to modify the conditions imposed. At any rate, at the present moment and with the available inputs, we find no reason to assume that the petitioner is being vexed and harassed when he goes to comply with the conditions imposed in the anticipatory bail order. If the petitioner has such a grievance, we repeat that, the petitioner must bring it to the notice of the court which granted anticipatory bail and seek modified directions. 6. We are not satisfied that any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can, need or deserve to be issued now. W.P(C) No.38568 of 2010-U 4 7. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, but with the above specific observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/