IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18585 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THAJUDHEEN, S/O. KASIM, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT 17/225, (32/128 OLD), NARIKUTHI, KADAMALAKUNDU, PALAKKAD-1. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, REP. BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SCB, CHENNAI. 2. K.SUBBIAN, S/O. KANDASWAMI, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/SCB, KOCHI UNIT, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI. 3. D'CRUZ, S/O. CHARLIE, INSPECTOR, CBI/SCB, KOCHI UNIT, NOW RESIDING AT 42/1750, POOTHULLIL LANE, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOCHI-18. 4. RINOY M.VIJAYAN, S/O. VIJAYAN, PC 4030, TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.678001 5. H.SREEDHARAN, HC NO.3563, NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.678001 6. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE HOME SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT. 695001 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 001. 8. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAKKAD SOUTH POLICE STATION.678001 BY S.C. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI (CBI) BY SRI,JOBY PAUL (R6 TO R8) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 15/5/2006 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASI, MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.68/2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE AFIDAVIT DATED 6/7/2011 SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER AND ENTRUSTED TO HIS COUNSEL. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 7/7/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE C.I. NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM AGAINST RSPONDENTS 2 TO 5. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT & PETITION DATED 7/7/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IIIRD ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS (CB-1) COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2/2/2011 IN WP (C) NO.2759/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 18585 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by the petitioner, an ice-cream vendor at Malapuzha Dam area, complaining that the officials of the first respondent Central Bureau of Investigation, particularly respondents 2 to 5, are harassing him and members of his family without any justifiable cause. It is alleged that on account of the harassment of respondents 2 to 5, peaceful life has become impossible for the petitioner and members of his family. 2. Addressing us in detail Adv.V.J.James, representing the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was cited by the CBI as charge witness in Sessions Case No.367/2010 presently pending trial before the CBI, Special Court, Ernakulam. It was submitted that he was actually examined as PW12. But WPC.No.18585/2011 2 the evidence given by him before the Session Court was not voluntary. The same was result of duress exerted by the officials of the first respondent on him. 3. Before the Sessions Court, he is cited by the defence as a defence witness. Respondents 2 to 5 are harassing the petitioner for fear that the petitioner will reveal the truth in his evidence which he may give as defence witness. 4. Resisting the submissions of Mr.James, Sri.P.Chandrasekharan Pillai learned standing counsel for CBI submitted that the allegations and accusations levelled against the CBI by the petitioner are without any basis. Petitioner was already examined before the Session Court as PW12 and in his evidence he has supported the prosecution in all respects. The evidence adduced by PW12 is of vital importance to the prosecution case as the theory that the accused was last seen with the deceased stands proved by that evidence. The learned standing counsel submitted that respondents 2 to 5 have not harassed the petitioner at all. They do not intend to harass them either. The present writ petition is sheer abuse of legal process and the same may be dismissed in limine. WPC.No.18585/2011 3 5. We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. The only issue which calls for decision by us in our present jurisdiction is whether there is any warrant for issuing directions accepting the petitioner's allegation that he is being harassed by respondents 2 to 5. Having considered the rival submissions addressed and having gone through the materials produced, it is very clear to our mind that there is absolutely no warrant for issuance of the directions sought for, which are as follows; i). issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 or anybody acting under them on their behalf not to harass or harm the petitioner or his family members; ii) issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 6 to 8 to ensure that respondents 1 to 5 do not harass or harm the petitioner and his family members or interfere with their peaceful lives in any manner. 6. Admittedly the petitioner was cited as witness by the first respondent and he was examined as PW12 as early as on WPC.No.18585/2011 4 12/1/2011 before the special court. Obviously, the present complaint that he gave evidence upon the duress exerted by the CBI was raised only much later. We do not find any warrant for issuance of the directions sought for in the writ petition. The writ petition will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk