IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 7241 of 2010(Q) --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.189/2010 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION. ................. PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SUBEESH P., S/O.PARAMESWARAN, AGED 26 YEARS, KALYAPPALLIL HOUSE,NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VAIKOM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM POLICE STATION. 4. M.S. PRASANNAN, S/O.SANKARAN, MANAKKALPARAMPIL HOUSE, PADINJARE MURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE,VAIKOM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C)No. 7241 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 26th day of March,2010 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 the Sub Inspector of Police and Circle Inspector of Police, Vaikom Police Station, not to harass the petitioner by demanding surrender of autorikshaw bearing reg. No.KL-36/1784 which has no connection with Crime 189/2010 of Vaikom Police Station and for a direction to have a proper investigation of that case. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is arrayed as an accused in Crime No.189/2010 under Ext.P1 F.I.R and the First Information Statement shows that the first informant is a Chief Reporter of Special Branch CID and on 12.2.2010 at 1.30 p.m, while he was at the site W.P.(C)7241/2010 2 wherein a new residential building is being constructed, petitioner came there and allegedly scolded him and caused hurt by beating him. In the nature of the allegations in Ext.P1, the autorikshaw has nothing to do with the offences committed. Therefore the direction to surrender the autorikshaw is only a harassment and hence a direction is to be issued. It is also contended that Crime 189/2010 of Vaikom Police Station is to be properly investigated. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government pleader were heard. 4. Learned counsel pointed out that when Ext.P1 shows that autorikshaw KL-36/1784 has nothing to do with the offences alleged, the direction to surrender the autorikshaw is only to harass the petitioner, as the first informant is a police officer and hence a direction is to be issued. W.P.(C)7241/2010 3 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner was directed to produce the autorikshaw to prepare a mahazar and not to harass the petitioner. 6. From Ext.P1 F.I.R it is clear that autorikshaw KL-36/1784 has no connection with the offences alleged. There is no mention in Ext.P1 that any offence was committed using the said autorikshaw. The First Information Statement does not even mention that petitioner reached there in that autorikshaw. Even if it is taken that petitioner came there in that autorikshaw, there is no necessity to prepare a mahazar of that autorikshaw. In such circumstances, there is no justifiable reason for directing the petitioner to surrender the autorikshaw in Crime 189/2010. Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed not to direct the petitioner to surrender autorikshaw KL-36/1784. It is also made clear that investigation in Crime No.189/2010 of W.P.(C)7241/2010 4 Vaikom Police Station shall be conducted fairly and properly and without any bias. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006