IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3883 of 2009(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- JACOB T.K., S/O.KURUVILA, AGED 41 YEARS, THOZHUPPADAN HOUSE, VELOOR, PUTHENCRUZE P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 308. BY ADV. SRI.SABU THOZHUPPADAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM, (RURAL), ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 6. BIJU K.STEPHEN, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. 7. A.P.VARGHESE, ANNAMALLATHIL HOUSE, VELOOR, PUTHENCRUZ P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 308. 8. ARUNKUMAR A.K., ARUNAPRIYA HOUSE, PIPLELINE ROAD, TRIKKAKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 3883 OF 2009 (K) ==================== Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's prayer is for directing the 1st respondent to investigate into the complaint made as per Exts.P1 and P2. A further direction to remove the 6th respondent from the Law and Order Wing of Police Department and other reliefs are also sought for. 2. The whole case has been set up by the petitioner on the allegation that he was illegally arrested by the 6th respondent on 22/1/2009 and that he was detained in police custody demanding Rs.50,000/- as illegal gratification to exclude him from the array of accused in Crime No.104/09. 3. In view of the allegations raised in the writ petition, I directed the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions in the matter. 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that in connection with the investigation in Crime No.104/09, among other persons, the petitioner was also questioned. He denies the allegations of harassment. It is stated that it was only to harass the 6th respondent that the writ petition has been filed. It is also pointed out that on the day when the writ petition came up for admission in this Court, the news about the filing of this writ petition WPC 3883/09 :2 : and the contents of this writ petition were reported in the print media, which according to the Government Pleader, was done only to harass the 6th respondent and to defame him. 5. Irrespective of the controversial submissions made by both sides, what emerges from the facts as pleaded is that, there is a crime registered by the police officer and the petitioner was also questioned in connection with that crime. Apart from the allegations that the petitioner was harassed and bribe was demanded, there is nothing available for this Court to conclude either way on such allegations. In these circumstances, this Court will not be justified in issuing the directions that are sought for in this writ petition, as otherwise such directions could cause prejudice to the officer concerned. Hence if any complaint has been made by the petitioner, it is upto the concerned authorities to do the needful. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp