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 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18027 of 2011(C) -------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- SULAIKHA YOUSUFF, W/O.YOUSUFF, DISTRICT COMMITTEE SECRETARY PUCL, MALAPPURAM, CHEENIKKARA VEETTIL, PERUMPADAPPU DESOM, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.R.SUDHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505. 4. P.P.FARSHAD, THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION, PERUMPADAPPU DESOM, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPIN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 18027 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PRESS RELESE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE F.I.R. REGISTERED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO. 206/11. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE F.I.R. REGISTERED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO. 207/11. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BEFORE THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS DATED 27.6.2011. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE MOTHER'S SISTER TO THE S.P., MALAPPURAM, DATED 23.6.11. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18027 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The petitioner who claims to be a social activist in Malappuram District and Secretary of PUCL (People's Union for Civil Liberties), said to be a nationwide reputed organization pioneering various causes for the society, has approached this court complaining that at the behest of the 4th respondent Sub Inspector of Police respondent Nos.2 and 3 and other police officers under them are harassing petitioner and members of her family unnecessarily. On considering this writ petition for admission and on hearing the submissions which were addressed before us by Smt. R. Sudha, learned counsel for the petitioner, this court on 5.7.2011 passed the following order:- “Heard Smt. R. Sudha, learned counsel for the petitioner. As directed by us, the Govt. Pleader has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. the 3rd respondent is directed to conduct an immediate enquiry into the allegation levelled in this writ petition against the 4th respondent and submit report to this court by the next posting date of the case. Issue notice by speed post to R4. Post on 13.7.2011.” 2. Today, pursuant to that order, the 3rd respondent District Police Chief has filed a detailed statement. When this W.P.(C).18027/11 -2- writ petition came up for hearing, it was submitted by Smt. Sudha that the order dt.5.7.2011 has not been complied with. But Sri. T.K. Vipin Das, learned Government Pleader submitted that the above said order has been complied in all respects and it is the 3rd respondent himself who has filed the statement. According to the learned Government Pleader, it is a true and correct account of the facts of the case that has been given by the District Police Chief in his statement. A crime has been registered. There is a civil dispute between one Sri. Abdul Rahiman and the petitioner's mother's sister. As a sequel of that civil dispute, the police has registered Crime No.207/2011 against the above said Abdul Rahiman. But the police has also registered another crime against the petitioner and other members of her family as Crime No.206/2011 under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 read with 149 IPC of the Perumpadappu Police. Both these crimes are being investigated into. It is further stated that as many as 7 crimes have been registered against the petitioner and members of her family in various police stations of Malappuram, Thrissur and Palakkad Districts. The numbers of those crimes are also given and it is revealed that the petitioner's son Mirshad is another accused in these crimes. The statement of the Police Chief concludes by W.P.(C).18027/11 -3- pointing out that only two cases have been registered in 2011 by the 4th respondent and that both these cases have been registered on the basis of statements given by de facto complainants. It is further stated that the petitioner is misusing the name of the organization PUCL to shield her son and herself from the process of law. It is alleged that the petitioner and her family members are constantly creating problems to the public. Petitioner is threatening the public on the premise that she is the Secretary to the PUCL. The allegations of the police harassments are stoutly denied and it is stated that what has been done by the 4th respondent is only what was absolutely necessary for the proper conduct of the investigation. It is also pointed out that many of the allegations against the 4th respondent are in respect of a period when he was not in the police at all. 3. Smt. Sudha, learned counsel for the petitioner, however would reiterate her submission that the petitioner and members of her family are being prosecuted and harassed by the police for the only reason that the petitioner is an activist of PUCL. 4. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar. The question is whether there is any W.P.(C).18027/11 -4- warrant for issuance of directions as sought for or whether acts done by the 4th respondent amounts to harassment of the petitioner. According to us, the above question can be answered in the negative only. Crimes have been registered against the petitioner and her son. So also, considering the complaints submitted by the petitioner herself a crime has been registered against Abdul Rahiman the complainant in the complaint against the petitioner. Sri. Abdul Rahiman is pitted in a civil dispute with the petitioner's mother's sister. We do not find any justification for issuing directions sought for. As for investigation in the crimes it is open to the petitioner to avail remedies available to her under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted by Smt. Sudha at this juncture that the petitioner and most of the members of the petitioner's family have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, Manjeri. 5. We dispose of the writ petition declining the relief sought for, but directing the police that in case any member of the petitioner's family who is not included in a crime registered by the police is required for the purpose of questioning, the provisions of Section 160 of Cr.P.C. should be adhered to. So also, before arresting the petitioner or any member of her family in connection with the crime registered or not registered, the W.P.(C).18027/11 -5- provisions of Section 41 A to 41D will be strictly adhered to. The 4th respondent is directed not to intervene in the civil disputes between the petitioner's mother's sister and Abdul Rahiman. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb