IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7372 of 2011(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SURESH, S/O SELVARAJ NADAR, DAS VILLA, M.S.A.ROAD, MUNNAR. 2. SHEEBA SURESH, W/O SURESH, DAS VILLA, M.S.A.ROAD, MUNNAR. BY ADVS. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM SRI.R.MAHESH (KOTTAPPURAM) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SRI. BALAKRISHNAN, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPATTA, DIST. WYNAD. 673121. 2. SMT. MADHUMATHI, ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,(P.W.D.), KALPETTA, DIST. WYNAD. 673121. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.M.CHARISMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.7372 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondent No.1 who, according to them, are harassing the petitioners at the instance of the second respondent. 2. According to the petitioners, the second respondent is very influential with the police. She has lodged a complaint before the first respondent. In such complaint, she has staked a monetary claim against the petitioners. The first respondent, under the influence of the second respondent, is vexing and harassing the petitioners with demands to settle the claim of the second respondent. According to the petitioners, they have no liability to the second respondent. They are aggrieved by the conduct of the first respondent. It is in these circumstances that they came to this Court with this WPC No.7372/2011 2 petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that it is true that a complaint was received from the second respondent. But, the police did not perceive elements of any crime in such complaint. In these circumstances, no action will be taken against the petitioners on that complaint of the second respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the second respondent, however, submits that the boot is on the other leg. The police are not taking appropriate action on the complaint of the second respondent. This obliged the second respondent to lodge a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on receipt of the complaint has forwarded the same to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. A crime has been registered as Crime No.193 of 2011 of Kalpetta Police Station. The second respondent only expects proper legal action in accordance with law on her complaint. 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that on the crime registered, action in accordance with law shall WPC No.7372/2011 3 be taken. There shall be no question of vexing or harassing the petitioners. Such action that is required in accordance with law shall be taken by the police officials, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners want to challenge the said FIR registered on various grounds. They want to challenge the same on the question of jurisdiction also, submits the learned counsel. 7. Appropriate action, if any, to be taken in the investigation of the crime cannot be described or dubbed as vexation or harassment. With liberty to the police officials to take appropriate action in accordance with law in Crime No.193/2011 of Kalpetta Police Station, we are satisfied that this writ petition can now be dismissed. We may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this writ petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to take appropriate action in accordance with law to get the FIR quashed or to seek bail/anticipatory bail from appropriate courts/police officials. The second respondent's option to take appropriate action in WPC No.7372/2011 4 accordance with law, if proper investigation is not conducted in the crime shall also not be fettered in any manner by this judgment. 8. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observation. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/