IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31783 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.R.ANIL KUMAR AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,MARIYA BHAVAN, KUTTIKALAYIL,GANDHI NAGAR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SANDHYA RAJU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM- 695 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 4. MADHU, DYSP,PALAKKAD CRIME BRANCH, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 5. SUMESH,SUB INSPECTOR OF WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM 686 003. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.31783 of 2010-W ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court raising a grievance of harassment by the police. According to the petitioner, he is a person suffering physical disability. He is an autorikshaw driver by profession. The police are inimical towards him. Particular grievance is raised against respondents 4 and 5. Because of such animosity, they are indulging in the vexatious conduct of registering crimes against the petitioner. The petitioner was obliged to defend many worthless and frivolous prosecutions. He succeeded in all of them. This has further infuriated the police officials. Afraid of the consequences, the petitioner has not been driving his vehicle for some period of time. The W.P.(C) No.31783 of 2010 -: 2 :- petitioner wants to pursue his avocation as a driver. Because of the harassment, the petitioner is put to trouble. He is unable to pursue his avocation. In these circumstances, appropriate directions under Art.226 of the Constitution may be issued, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The learned Government Pleader appears on behalf of the respondents. A statement has been filed. It is submitted that the allegations are totally baseless. The learned Government Pleader points out that the emptiness and falsity of the allegations can be ascertained easily from the fact that no crime has been registered against the petitioner after 2003. The petitioner has a disability. He is an autorikshaw driver. He does not want to abide by the traffic rules and regulations. He wants to violate them with immunity. He has been prosecuted on some earlier occasions. It is of course true that such prosecutions had ended in acquittal for various reasons. Such acquittals by themselves do not indicate a yen for harassment of the petitioner by any police official. The very fact that no crime has been registered admittedly against the petitioner from 2003 must suggest to this W.P.(C) No.31783 of 2010 -: 3 :- Court that the allegations of harassment are not true. The learned Government Pleader, on behalf of the respondents, undertake that the police officials shall not indulge in any vexatious acts against the petitioner. But if he offends the law/traffic rules and regulations, certainly police officials will be obliged to take action against the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader submits that if the petitioner has any future complaint of harassment by any subordinate police officials, the petitioner can complain to the 3rd respondent who shall promptly look into the matter and do the needful. If such grievances are not redressed, needless to say, the petitioner can approach the Police Complaint Authority also. 3. We take note of the circumstance that no proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner after 2003. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the undertaking of the learned Government Pleader can be accepted. No further directions are necessary in this writ petition. 4. We do, in these circumstances, dismiss this writ petition accepting the undertaking of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents that there shall not be no vexatious W.P.(C) No.31783 of 2010 -: 4 :- action whatsoever against the petitioner and if there be any such vexatious action, the petitioner shall be at liberty to complain to the 3rd respondent who shall look into the matter immediately. 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 W.P.(C) No.31783 of 2010 -: 5 :-