IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30975 of 2011(V) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P.M.SALHUDHEEN NAINA,S/O.P.M.MOHAMMED, AGED 47 YEARS, TEACHER, PUTHENVEETTIL, THRIKKAKARA P.O.,VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. P.M.ABDULLAKUTY,S/O.LATE P.V.MOHAMMED, PUNNILATH, ILLATHUMPADY,EDAVANAKKAD, ERNAKULAM-682502 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA-683101 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM-682030 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30975 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.31/05/07 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF the LAWYER NOTICE DATED 20/11/10 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER TO THE COUNSEL FOR 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02/12/10. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/11/11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.30975 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions against what is described as harassment by the 2nd respondent/DYSP at the instance of the 1st respondent. Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, the learned senior Government Pleader, on the basis of instructions from the 2nd respondent submitted that the accusations of harassment levelled against the police officer is without basis. The 1st respondent filed a petition before the Honourable Chief Minister during the Chief Minister's mass contact programme against the petitioner. The allegation made in the above petition was that the petitioner had gone back on his agreement to sell his property to the 1st respondent even after receiving ` 50,000/- as advance. The above petition was forwarded to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent summoned the W. P. C. No.30975 of 2011 -2- petitioner as well as the 1st respondent. The petitioner agreed that the amount which he had received as advance from the 1st petitioner will be repaid to the 1st respondent. Later it was revealed that even the above agreement was violated by the petitioner. Accordingly a cheating case has been registered against the petitioner as Crime No.1512/11. The petitioner's attendance was required by the police in connection with the investigation of the above crime. This action cannot be branded as harassment. 2. The only question which arises for decision is whether the action of the police in insisting on the attendance of the petitioner can be branded as harassment. According to us, in the facts which obtain in this particular case where crime is registered and investigation is being conducted, the action of the police cannot be branded as harassment. We decline jurisdiction and dismiss the Writ Petition. However, it is open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies if any available to him under the Code of Criminal W. P. C. No.30975 of 2011 -3- Procedure against Crime No.1512/11. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE