IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30038 of 2011(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. ANTONY, S/O.MANUVAL, AGED 67 YEARS, KURISINKAL HOUSE, MANJUMMAL, ELOOR, PIN-683 501 2. LIXON ANTONY, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 31, KURISINKAL HOUSE, MANJUMMAL, ELOOR, PIN-683 501 BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR SMT.S.K.SREEKALA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ,CENTRAL RANGE, O/O.THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 011 2. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOCHI CITY, O/O.THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, REVENUE TOWER, ERNAKULAM,-PIN-682 011 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH CIRCLE,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 018 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ELOOR POLICE STATION, PIN-683 501 5. LILLY ANTONY, W/O.ANTONY, AGED 64 KURISINKAL HOUSE, MANJUMMAL, ELOOR, PIN-683 501 6. C.E.GEORGE, S/O.IGNATIUS AGED 68, CHERIYAKADAVIL HOUSE, ELOOR FERRY ROAD, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O.PIN-683 501 R1 TO R4 STATE ATTORNEY SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAM KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.30038/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LEARNED JFCM COURT, NORTH PARAVUR AS M.C.NO.56/11. P2 COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS IN THE ABOVE M.C. P3 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 07/10/11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 30038 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioners, a father and son, have filed this writ petition complaining that at the behest of the respondents 5 and 6 the local officers of police - respondents 3 and 4 are harassing them. 2. On considering this writ petition for admission, we directed the learned senior Government Pleader to seek instructions from the 4th respondent as to the correctness of the accusations. Today, Sri.C.R.Shyamkumar learned senior Government Pleader submitted that accusations of harassment by the police are without basis. The 5th respondent is none other than the wife of the first petitioner and mother of the second petitioner. The 5th respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners. The allegation in the above complaint was that the property belonging to the 5th respondent was forcefully got conveyed to the name of the second petitioner and that the 5th respondent has now been thrown to street.The 4th respondent on WPC.No.30038/2011 2 receiving the complaint, summoned both parties to the police station. In the police station on their own it was agreed by the petitioners that the property will be reconveyed to the 5th respondent. The petition was closed without registering any crime. 3. The only question, which we were called upon to decide in this writ petition, is whether the action of the police in insisting on the appearance of the petitioners in the police station can be branded as a harassment. According to us, in the light of what is submitted by the learned senior Government Pleader, the same cannot be branded as harassment. We decline reliefs and dismiss this writ petition. However, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent - Sub Inspector of Police that he is not expected to intervene in disputes between the parties which are purely civil in nature. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk WPC.No.30038/2011 3