IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 521 of 2011(M) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. KUMARAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. PAPPU, RESIDING AT PUKINAMKUDI, CHELAD P.O., KALLAD, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SARADHA KUMARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O. KUMARAN, RESIDING AT PUKINAMKUDI HOUSE, CHELAD P.O., KALLAD, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM SRI. JEFF JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. RINI VARGHESE, D/O. VARGHESE, RESIDING AT KALAYATHUMPADI HOUSE, GANDHI NAGAR COLONY, MALIPARA, PINDIMANA-686 698, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 521 of 2011-M ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioners, parents of a young man by name `Sajin' (though the name is so shown in the petition, the learned Government Pleader submits that the real name is `Sijil') who is alleged to be in love with the 3rd respondent, has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 not to harass them, their children and their relatives. According to the petitioners, they have no idea about the whereabouts of their son. Respondents 1 and 2 police officials at the instance of the 3rd respondent, the woman with whom the said son of the petitioners is said to be in love is unnecessarily vexing and harassing the petitioners, their children and their relatives. It is prayed that such harassment W.P.(C) No. 521 of 2011 -: 2 :- may be avoided. 2. Notice was given to the learned Government Pleader and the learned Government Pleader was requested to take instructions. 3. Today, when the matter came up for admission hearing, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions from respondents 1 and 2, submits that the real state of affairs is entirely different. A crime has been registered against the said Sijil, son of the petitioners, as Crime No.1000/10 of Kothamangalam Police Station, inter alia, under Sec.376 IPC. He had allegedly committed the crime against the 3rd respondent herein. In connection with that crime, police are making enquiries about the said Sijil. In connection with such enquiry police had occasion to go to the petitioners with whom the said Sijil resides permanently. The said Sijil has not been traced. It is true that in connection with the efforts to trace the said Sajil the petitioners have been contacted, It is incorrect to say that the said conduct of respondents 1 and 2 amounts to harassment in any way. The petitioners are attempting to shied and protect their son and are making unnecessary allegation of harassment. The police officials will have to continue their efforts to trace Sijil, the above said accused. As the said Sijil was residing W.P.(C) No. 521 of 2011 -: 3 :- permanently with the petitioners it is only in natural and reasonable that the police officials will have to check the presence of the said accused in the house of the petitioners. These cannot be reckoned as harassment in any sense of the term. The learned Government Pleader, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, accepts that the petitioners 1 and 2 shall not in any way be harassed. But the police cannot assure that the police shall not be visiting their house in their efforts to trace the accused. The petitioners shall not be asked to come to the Police Station, submits the learned Government Pleader. If there presence is required, proper notice in accordance with law shall be issued to them before they are summoned to the Police Station. These submissions/undertakings on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 may be accepted and this writ petition may now be closed, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The police are duty bound to investigate the crime in a proper and efficient manner. In connection with the investigation they are bound to continue their efforts to trace the accused and question him. In connection with such attempt they will necessarily have to check the movements of the accused. His ordinary place of residence and places which he usually frequent will have to be W.P.(C) No. 521 of 2011 -: 4 :- kept under surveillance. We are unable to agree that these acts which the police officials are bound to and expected to perform can be described as harassment to the petitioners. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no specific directions deserve to be issued in favour of the petitioners. 5. Accepting the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioners shall not be called to the Police Station and recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that when their presence is required, prior notice under the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be issued to them. 6. This writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge