IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6047 of 2011(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.KUNJUPILLAI, 701, VARA, MANJADIMOODU, VATTIYOORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAIN SRI.P.F.FRANCIS SRI.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI.G. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIVEK DHIR, CB2/SPE/ACB, CBI OFFICE, CHANDIGHARH. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, CBI OFFICE, CHANDIGARH. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, CBI OFFICE, CHANDIGARH. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CBI, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. SRI. P. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, SC,CBI SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOL.GENL.OF INDIA BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No.6047 of 2011-E ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining about harassment by respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 1 and 2 are officials of the C.B.I. They are from the Chandigarh Unit of the C.B.I. They have come to Kerala in search of an accused in a crime registered at their Unit. They have issued Ext.P1 notice to one Mr. Mohankumar, the son-in-law of the petitioner. The said son-in-law has been directed to appear before the C.B.I. officials in connection with the investigation of a crime registered. The said Mohankumar is not available. The officials are compelling and harassing the petitioner in their attempt to somehow secure the presence of the said Mohankumar. The petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested. It is, in these W.P.(c) No.6047 of 2011 -: 2 :- circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition claiming issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution against harassment by the police officials i.e., respondents 1 and 2. 2. Notice has been given to the learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I. The learned Standing Counsel, after taking instructions, submits that, at the moment, the petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused. Hence there is at present no proposal to arrest the petitioner. The C.B.I. is interested only in securing the presence of the son-in-law of the petitioner who is already arrayed as an accused in a pending crime. Ext.P1 notice has been issued to the son-in-law of the petitioner to appear before the officials to facilitate a proper and expeditious investigation. He is making himself scarce and is not appearing before the C.B.I. officials. C.B.I. officials are attempting to trace him and to question him in connection with the crime. 3. The petitioner's grievance that the petitioner is being harassed is without any substance, submits the Standing Counsel. Respondents 1 and 2 have no intention to harass the petitioner. Investigation is in progress and at the moment the C.B.I. is unable to assert that the petitioner shall not be required to be arrayed as an accused in connection with the crime. There W.P.(c) No.6047 of 2011 -: 3 :- are certain allegations against the petitioner and if necessary the petitioner may have to be arrayed as an accused depending upon the progress and result of the investigation; but the allegation of harassment is without any basis or substance. At the moment, the Investigating Officers are interested in procuring the presence of the accused i.e., the son-in-law of the petitioner to facilitate proper completion of the investigation. It is assured that there shall not be any vexation or harassment whatsoever against the petitioner. 4. We record the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I. Attempts to procure the presence of the son-in-law of the petitioner cannot be described to be harassment against the petitioner. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this petition. 5. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge