IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32655 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.K.PADMANABHA PILLAI, ANJALY, THANNEERMUKKOM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANATHPAURAM-695 001 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HADQUARTERS,THIRUVANANATHPAURAM-695 001 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA-688 520. 4. THE SUB INSPEPCTOR OF POLICE, MUHAMMA POLICE STATION, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 527. BY SR.G.P.SRI.S. ABDUL SALAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 4/12/2011 ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.319/11/P1/MHA DATED 13/7/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. CL PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C).NO.32655 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The petitioner, who claims to be the power of attorney holder of the Hereditary Trustee of Sri Chalinarayanapuram temple and also the Secretary of the Kerala Kshetra Samrakshana Samithi, Alappuzha and the office bearer and functionary of various Hindu Organizations, has filed this writ petition alleging that he is being harassed by the 4th respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Muhamma Police Station. According to him, a Thiruvabharanam weighing 1 ½ kgs in gold was lost to the temple and no steps have been taken by the police authorities for tracing the same out and for bringing the guilty to book. Hence he filed a complaint before the 4th respondent as Ext.P1. On receiving Ext.P1, the 4th respondent became very angry and he shouted and misbehaved towards the petitioner. Since then the 4th respondent is behaving towards the petitioner in a manner which is unbecoming of a police officer. 2. On considering this writ petition for admission, we W.P.(C).NO.32655 OF 2011 : 2 : directed the State Attorney, who took notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 to seek instructions from the 4th respondent. Today, Sri. S.Abdul Salam, Senior Government Pleader, on the basis of the written instructions received from the 4th respondent submitted that accusations of police harassment are untrue. According to him, the petitioner came to Mohamma Police Station at about 11 a.m on 4.12.2011 and criticised the 4th respondent regarding the outside influences on him in the matter in discharging his official duties. Several documents were also placed by the petitioner before the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent on going through the documents, understood that since 2002 there has been several civil litigations regarding administration of the temple and would inform the petitioner that he is new to the said police station and will study all the records and take appropriate actions. According to the 4th respondent, the allegations levelled in this writ petition against him by the petitioner are absolutely false. The 4th respondent has never behaved in an improper manner with the petitioner. On 6.12.2011 a complaint was received from the Devaswom W.P.(C).NO.32655 OF 2011 : 3 : Administrator of Chali Narayanapuram temple that the petitioner trespassed into the compound of the above temple and forcibly installed a board and a saffron flag. It was also reported that standing in the temple compound the petitioner was shouting slogans. Information was received that the action of the petitioner was likely to result in communal tension in the locality especially as 6.12.2011 was being observed by certain sections of the people as the Barbari Masgid day. The 4th respondent sent GSI and two CPOs to the temple premises. The police party upon reaching the temple informed the 4th respondent over telephone that the local people have been infuriated due to the action of the petitioner. The 4th respondent directed the police party to handover the phone to the petitioner and the 4th respondent only told the petitioner that he is not expected to make any troubles in the temple compound. The petitioner was consoled by telling him that all the issues will be solved. The petitioner’s response to what the 4th respondent told him however was one of recalcitrance. The petitioner insisted that the Administrator of the Devaswom, who owes W.P.(C).NO.32655 OF 2011 : 4 : allegiance to the Congress party, should be removed from the temple and the 4th respondent does not have to issue instructions to the petitioner, who is the power of attorney holder of the temple. The petitioner abruptly cut the telephone conversation. It is understood on further enquiry that the petitioner is a court bird who files complaints one after another and gets involved in various litigations. If the relief sought for by the petitioner is granted, there is every likelihood of the petitioner entering into the temple compound once again and creating troubles therein. The police may not be able to intervene, if this Court issues directions as sought for by the petitioner. 3. Sri. N. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner per contra would oppose what was submitted by the learned Government Pleader based on the instructions from the 4th respondent. According to Sri. Radhakrishnan, the 4th respondent, who is duty bound to investigate the petitioner's complaint regarding loss of 1 ½ kgs of gold from the temple is not properly investigating that complaint. He is without any justifiable reasons raising allegations W.P.(C).NO.32655 OF 2011 : 5 : against the petitioner, who is the power attorney holder of the hereditary trustee of the temple. 4. Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the bar, the short question which arises for decision by us in this case is whether the action of the 4th respondent on the basis of which the petitioner is seeking directions from this Court can be branded as harassment. According to us, the above question can be answered only in the negative. As the Station House Officer, it was the duty of the 4th respondent to maintain law and order in the area within his jurisdiction. If it was reported to him that anybody was creating trouble in the compound of the temple, even if it be administrator or trustee or power of attorney holder, then he had the duty to intervene and to ensure that no law and order situation or violence erupts. We decline the direction sought for. At the same time we direct the 4th respondent to issue notice under Section 160 of Cr.P.C to the petitioner, if the attendance of the petitioner is required in connection with any enquiry or investigation in future. So also the 3rd respondent, Superintendent of Police, is W.P.(C).NO.32655 OF 2011 : 6 : directed to ensure that the officer, who is investigating into the complaint regarding loss of Thiruvabharanam of the temple, conducts the investigation most sincerely and thoroughly and completes the investigation as early as possible. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl