IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17210 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. GEEVARGHESE, S/O CHERIAN, AGED 53 YEARS, KALLUVILA ANEESH BHAVAN, PUNUKKANNOOR CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. SOOSAMMA, D/O IDICHANDY, AGED 52 YEARS, KALLUVILA PADINJATTATHIL, PUNUKKANNOOR CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 2. MATHEW, S/O MATHEW, AGED 65 YEARS, THAYYILTHEKKATHIL,@ MADOM, PUNUKANNOOR CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 17210 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The petitioners complain police harassment at the hands of first respondent. According to the petitioner, a suit, O.S.No.395/2009, is pending before the Munsiff Court, Kollam, between the petitioners and the second respondent and his son. The matter relates to a boundary dispute. But the first respondent is insisting to withdraw the case filed and pending before the Munsiff Court, and also threatening to involve him in a criminal case. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that the allegation in the writ petition is untrue. Though a civil suit is pending, a complaint is made by the second respondent stating that the petitioners are removing the boundary stone, and the police have enquired W.P.(C) No.17210/2009 2 into the said complaint only. As a matter of fact, earlier the boundary stone was laid after obtaining police assistance by the Tahsildar. In such circumstances, we cannot find any harassment as alleged by the petitioners. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.