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 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 4348 of 2010(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SABEENA, D/O.SAINABA, PUSHPATHARAYIL VEEDU, SRPM P.O., KUTTIPPURAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. ANILDAS, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C.I.OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 4. RAJMOHAN, HEAD CONSTABLE, C.I.OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 5. ASOK KUMAR, ASST.SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION. 6. ABDUL VAHAB, HEAD CONSTABLE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION. 7. ANIMON, S/O.UMMERKUTTY, MARIYAYUDE PARAMBIL, KAYAMKULAM. ADDL.8 : POLICE COMPLAINTS AND GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL AUTHORITY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY ADDL. 8TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO. 4913 OF 2010 DATED 8.4.2010 G.P. SRI. T K VIPINDAS ADV.. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR FOR R5-6 SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) FOR R5-6 SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FOR R7 SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER FOR R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.11.2009 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.1.2010 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPDT. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DT.29.1.10 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DT.29.1.10 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER. EXTP3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S SON AMEEN, DT.29.1.10 EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM REPORTED IN THEJAS DAILY DT.30.1.10. EXT.P4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM REPORTED IN MADHYAMAM DAILY DT.30.3.10. EXTP5: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS COMPLAINT DT.1.2.10 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : EXT.R7(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DT.30.9.09 ISSUED BY THE ATTACHE, INDIAN EMBASSY, SAUDI ARABIA. EXTR7(b): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ATTACHE, INDIAN EMBASSY, SAUDI ARABIA. // TRUE COPY // K.M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 4348 of 2010 P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010. JUDGMENT Joseph J., The petitioner approached this court with the following prayer: “to call for the records leading to Ext.P1 to P5 and to issue a writ of mandamus or order restraining the respondents 3 to 6 from interfering with the peaceful life of the petitioner, her mother and other relatives” 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen. She is legally wedded to the 7th respondent. A boy aged 2 ½ years was born in the wedlock. The relation has become strained due to cruelty. When the ill treatments became unbearable, the petitioner preferred a complaint. A crime W.P.(C) No. 4348 of 2010 P 2 was registered against the 7th respondent. The 7th respondent ejected the petitioner out of the matrimonial house. The 7th respondent colluded with respondents 3 to 6, who are police officers. It is stated that the petitioner and her mother and child were manhandled by respondents 3 to 6. They were treated in the hospital. The respondents are still harassing the petitioner. A counter affidavit was filed by the 7th respondent denying the said allegations raised by the petitioner. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed a petition to implead additional 8th respondent to take a action in Ext.P5. 5. The Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the matter and directing the additional 8th respondents to take a decision on Ext.P5, in accordance with law. We also make it W.P.(C) No. 4348 of 2010 P 3 clear that this will not be prejudice to the investigation of the crime, if any crime registered against the petitioner after this, in accordance with law. K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. dl/