IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33104 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JOY VARGHESE, THEKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, VANDAMALA MURI, KUNNAMTHANAM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE DISTRICT POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. VALSAMMA BABU, MULLAKKAL VEETTIL, VANDAMALA MURI, KUNNAMTHANAM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI.LAKSHMI NARAYAN FOR R1 AND 2. ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33104 of 2009(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: 4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(a) COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD.31.10/2007. R4(b) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.30.10.2009. ( TRUE COPY ) PA TO JUDGE. kvs/- P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.33104 of 2009-G. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This is an application alleging police harassment at the instance of the party respondent, who is a near relative of the petitioner. The 4th respondent, after entering appearance, filed a counter-affidavit denying allegations and also made certain serious allegations against the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the police officials would submit that, based on the complaint received from the respondent private party, the police only asked the petitioner to come to the police station for hearing. According to the petitioner, the police officials harassed him by illegal detention till evening. But no action was taken so far. It is stated that a civil dispute is pending between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. WP(C).No.33104/2009. -: 2 :- 2. Heard both sides. 3. Since the petitioner had already filed Ext.P1 complaint before the second respondent, the said respondent should consider and dispose of Ext.P1 after hearing the parties, in accordance with law. The writ petition is closed as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE . P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-