IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19288 of 2011(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- MATHEW VARGHESE, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE MATHEW, THEKKANATTU, ANANTHASRAMAM ROAD, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686101. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANASSERY - 686 101. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANASSERY - 686 101. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 19288/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMMON REQUEST MADE ON 28/09/2009 BY M/S. DIL CENTRAL COMMITTEE, KANJIKUZHI, KOTTAYAM - 4 ADDRESSED TO VARIOUS CIRCLE INSPECTORS AND SUB INSPECTORS OF POLICE STATION IN AND AROUND THE STATE OF KERALA. P2: COPY OF THE PUBLIC APPEAL DATED 02/10/2009 ISSUED BY M/S. DIL COMPANY CENTRAL COMMITTEE. P3: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 23/04/2009. P4: COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 24/04/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 19288 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions against what is described to be harassment by respondents, the officials of police at Changanassery. As directed by us Smt. Charisma, learned Govt. Pleader got instructions from the respondents. She submitted that it is not correct to say that the petitioner is being harassed by the respondents. The petitioner is accused No. 6 in Crime No. 1105 of 2011 of the Changanassery Police Station. The above crime has been registered on the basis of a complaint that the petitioner and the co-accused in that crime cheated several people to the tune of several lakhs offering them franchisee-ship in respect of a wonder remedy for cancer. The petitioner's presence was insisted upon only in connection with the investigation into that crime. WP(C). 19288/11 -2- 2. Responding to the submissions of the learned Govt. Pleader Sri.Praveen Hariharan, learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the averments in the affidavit in support of IA. No. 12347 of 2011, a petition for direction. The learned counsel submitted that even as this writ petition is pending before this Court for collection of instructions by the learned Govt. Pleader, on 27-7-2011 at 2.30 p.m. some police men came in a police jeep and enquired with the petitioner's son about the whereabout of the petitioner. Though the petitioner's son informed the police men that the petitioner has gone over to Ernakulam in connection with the present writ petition the police men refused to believe him and unauthorisedly entered into the house of the petitioner and on account of this entry the petitioner's daughter who is in confinement after delivery, became frightened and terror stricken and the petitioner's wife was also threatened by the police. WP(C). 19288/11 -3- 3. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar and the materials placed on record along with this writ petition, we are of the view that as the petitioner is accused No. 6 in Crime No. 1105/11 of the Changanassery Police Station he will have to pursue the remedies which are available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the above crime. We relegate the petitioner to such remedies. As for the allegations of harassment we record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that it is the attendance of the petitioner alone that is required by the police and that too in connection with the investigation of the crime which is already registered. We also record the further submission that no other member of the petitioner's family and much less the petitioner's wife, daughter or son is required for interrogation presently. We also direct the second respondent, the Station House Officer to issue notice to the petitioner whenever his attendance for WP(C). 19288/11 -4- interrogation is required in connection with the crime already registered or in any other crime which may be registered against him on the basis of prospective complaints which may be received against him. There shall not be any harassment to the family members of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Praveen Hariharan submitted that the petitioner is thinking in terms of applying to the Magistrate Court for bail and once bail is obtained the petitioner will appear before the Police and co-operate with the ongoing investigation. We record the above submission also. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-