IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 9392 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHANA KUMARI K., MUDAPPALANGAL PUTHANVEEDU, KOTTAMKARA, CHANDANATHOPE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 14. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.C.CHANDRA LAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 3. K.PRASANNAKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, PUNNASHERIKALAM, AATTUVATHALA, NEDUMUDI, ALAPPUZHA, (PRESENT ADDRESS) SECURITY OFFICER, S.C.T.M.I.S.T., POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 7706 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos. 9392 & 7706 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, W.P.(C) 9392 of 2009 is filed by Smt.Mohana Kumari, the mother-in-law of the third respondent. The third respondent has filed W.P.(C) No.7706 of 2009 against police harassment. 2. It is not in dispute that Sri.Prasanna Kumar married Smt.Anitha, daughter of Smt.Mohana Kumari. But the relationship has strained. Though this is the second marriage for both the parties, for finding out an amicable settlement, this court appointed a Mediator. Several attempts were made by the Mediator, but in vain. In the circumstances, we heard the parties. 2. Admittedly complaints have been received by the police against the petitioner in W.P.(C) 7706 of 2009. It is not necessary to find out the genuineness or otherwise of the complaints so made as we are not sitting in that jurisdiction. However, when a prima facie case is made out, the police can investigate the case, for which purpose, the WPC.9392 & 7706/2009. 2 presence of any party, if required, can be ensured by issuing notice as contemplated under Section 160 Criminal Procedure Code. It will also be ensured that no harassment is meted out to any of the parties. Accordingly we direct so. 3. As far as W.P.(C) 9392 of 2009 case is concerned, admittedly now the parties are residing at two different Districts and at present there is no necessity to issue any direction to the police. However, in case of any future threat, it is open to the petitioner or his daughter Smt.Anitha to file a complaint before the appropriate police station, where the alleged threat is posed, whereupon, necessarily, the police will investigate the same. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. While admitting W.P.(C) No.7706 of 2009, this court had directed the third respondent not to conduct further investigation on the complaint until further orders. In view of the disposal of this writ petition, the stay granted by this court stands vacated. We make it clear that in case the complaint made, based on which investigation is proceeded with, according to the petitioner is false, vexatious or without any basis, he can WPC.9392 & 7706/2009. 3 always seek his remedies open to him under law and this order will not stand in the way or taking away his rights. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.