IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16775 of 2010(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- DR.AUN A AZEEZ,BIMBI MANZIL, ELAMPALLOOR,KUNDARA,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. I.G.OF POLICE,TRICHUR RANGE,TRICHUR. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,TRICHUR. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION,TRICHUR. 5. DR.PRIYADARSINI C.PILLAI,D/O.TNC PILLAI, THYPARAMBIL HOUSE,MALLAPPALLY,THIRUVALLA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 16775 OF 2010-V APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN COUNSEL OF MODERN MEDICINE TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BA 892/2010 DATED 3.3.2010. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.16775 of 2010-V ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court complaining harassment by respondents 2 and 4 at the instance of the 5th respondent. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a qualified Medical Practitioner. He married Dr.Shabeena.S. According to the petitioner, the marriage ended in Talaq being pronounced by him, but the matter is pending before the Family Court, Trichur for declaration that the Talaq is legally valid. It is stated that while working at Holy Cross Hospital at Kottiyam in Kollam the petitioner met the 5th respondent, a Junior Doctor. There was a marriage proposal. The petitioner sought time to give reply. Petitioner did not however positively respond to the proposal. The 5th respondent's brother was serving in a senior post with the Central Government and he is highly influential. The 5th respondent filed complaint at the instigation of her parents before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta. It is stated that the the petitioner is summoned to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and he was threatened WPC No.16775/2010 -2- in the presence of the parents of the 5th respondent. Petitioner's bail application was closed recording that the police have no intention to arrest the petitioner at that point of time. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 5th respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that the 5th respondent had filed a complaint earlier and it ultimately culminated in the order passed in the bail application and thereafter she is nothing to do with the allegations which is raised against respondents 2 and 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that there is no question of harassment and there is no complaint received against the petitioner. Recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that there will be no harassment to the petitioner by respondents 2 and 4 at the instance of 5th respondent we close the writ petition. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS