IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1877 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DEEPTHI K.,D/O.K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 24 YEARS, SREESUMA LADIES HOSTEL, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTEDENT OF POLICE MALAPPURAM - 676 505. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 121. 3. KERALA VANITHA COMMISSION, NEAR LOURD CHURCH ,P.M.G., PATTOM P.O.,TRIVANDRUM,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY PIN - 695 001. 4. VASANTHAKUMARI,W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR VATTENGAD, MELAKKOM,NARUKARA, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 121. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN FOR R4 SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1877 of 2011(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(CRL) NO.300/2009 DATED 1.10.09. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE J.F.C.M-I, MANJERI AS C.M.P.NO.2104 OF 2010 DATED 22.07.2010. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED BY ONE GEETHA FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22.12.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE VANITHA COMMISSION. EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE. EXT.R4(c): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.07.2009. /TRUE COPY/ R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.1877 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining of harassment by the police and praying for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 and 2 to desist from such harassment and vexation at the instance of the 4th respondent. 2. The disputes between the petitioner on the one hand and her parents on the other have been in existence for a long period of time. It is suffice to refer to Ext.P1 judgment to ascertain the details and the nature of the conflict/disputes between the daughter and her parents. 3. After Ext.P1 judgment, the petitioner is residing at Sreesuma Ladies Hostel, Manjeri. She has secured an employment and is residing there. Obviously she is not able to see eye to eye with her parents. 4th respondent is her mother and her father, who was a party in Ext.P1 proceedings, has not been made a party in this Writ Petition. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. She does not in that counter affidavit W.P(C) No.1877 of 2011 2 make any reference of any complaint lodged by her husband, the father of the petitioner. According to her, she has not made any allegations against the petitioner though she has lodged a complaint before the 3rd respondent- Vanitha Commission, against two others other than the petitioner. 4. According to the petitioner even after Ext.P1 judgment her parents are continuing to indulge in conduct calculated to vex and harass her. She is not being permitted to live in peace at the instance of her parents. Police officials are taking action. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition. 5. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that the police had to take action in the light of a complaint dated 23.12.2010 submitted by the father of the petitioner, in which it was alleged that his daughter, the petitioner herein, is missing from 19.12.2010. A crime was registered as Crime No.734 of 2010 of Manjeri Police Station. As the allegation related to the missing of a young woman, the police felt persuaded to register the crime and investigate the same. The petitioner returned to her hostel on 23.12.2010. Her statement was recorded on 25.12.2010 and realising that the W.P(C) No.1877 of 2011 3 complaint did not have substance, investigation is now being closed. The learned Government Pleader submits that the police did not in any way help the parents of the petitioner to vex or harass her. Since the complaint was by the father about the missing of his daughter, the police took serious note of the complaint and registered the crime. It is only in the course of investigation that the police came to know the background of the case, the disputes between the daughter and her parents, and Ext.P1 judgment passed by this Court. It is submitted that the police do not require the petitioner for any purpose now. She shall not be questioned. Her presence shall not be insisted for such questioning. This petition may, in these circumstances, be closed, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. We must say that we are perturbed to note that even after Ext.P1, the parents of the petitioner are continuing to indulge in such conduct against the interests of the petitioner. The matter has been dealt in detail in Ext.P1 judgment. The parents must certainly be prepared to accept the decision of the daughter, who is now an educated adult woman, aged about 22 years. W.P(C) No.1877 of 2011 4 7. Though we come to the conclusion that no further actions is necessary in this matter, we deem it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to ensure that such vexatious complaints are vetted carefully before any crime is registered and action is contemplated against the petitioner. The 1st respondent must ensure that the petitioner is not subjected to any such unnecessary harassment and vexation even if such action emanates on the basis of the complaints given by the parents of the petitioner. 8. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. 9. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned Government Pleader for immediate communication to the 1st and 2nd respondents for future observance. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(C) No.1877 of 2011 5