IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17098 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MATHAI MATHAI, MADUKKAYIL HOUSE, KURIANADU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURAVILANGADU-686 633. 4. LYSAMMA, THEKKEL HOUSE, KURIANADU P.O., PIN-686 636, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 17098 of 2011-J ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 to 3 under Art.226 of the Constitution not to harass the petitioner at the instance of the 4th respondent. 2. The 4th respondent is a neighbour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the police is unnecessarily summoning him to the Police Station. When he goes to the Police Station, he finds the 4th respondent and her husband there. The police significantly does not explain to him why he called to the Police Station. This method of harassment continues. It is hence that the petitioner has come to this Court. 3. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that the allegations raised are false. The 4th respondent is the neighbour of the petitioner. The 4th respondent has a strained relationship with her husband. The petitioner and her husband are allegedly indulging in culpable and contumacious conduct against the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent had complained to the police on 15/1/11. A crime W.P.(C) No. 17098 of 2011 -: 2 :- was registered. Investigation was conducted. That crime was referred as mistake of fact. No action was taken by the police in that crime. 4. Subsequently, she preferred a further complaint on 3/6/11 on the allegation that the petitioner along with her husband is tormenting her. That complaint was received by the police. No crime was registered. The husband of the 4th respondent as also the petitioner were called to the Police Station. They were strictly warned against indulging in contumacious and culpable conduct. This is all what had happened. This very legitimate action on the part of the police is being described unnecessarily as vexation and harassment. The learned Government Pleader, on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, submits that police do not now require the presence of the petitioner at the Police Station in connection with any complaint. The presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted at the Police Station. If any crime is registered against him or his presence is required, he shall be summoned to the Police Station only in accordance with law. The apprehension of harassment is without any basis. This petition may, in these circumstances, be dismissed, prays the learned Government Pleader. 5. We record and accept the submissions of the learned W.P.(C) No. 17098 of 2011 -: 3 :- Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no further specific directions are necessary. 6. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge