IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 10340 of 2011(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MADHUSOODHANAN KARTHA, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.T.N.NARAYANAN KARTHA,KARIMATTATHIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHY KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM), SRI.PRASANTH M.P. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. N.AJITH,MANAGER,COCHIN MINERLAS & RUTAILS LIMITED,MARKET ROAD,ALUVA,RESIDING AT SATHI VILASAM,MUDAVOOR KARA,VELLOORKUNNAM, MUVATTUPUZHA- 686 661. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOIR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN- 683 542. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION,KURUPPAMPADY, PERUMBAVOOR,PIN 683 545. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION, KURUPPAMPADY, PERUMBAVOOR,PIN- 683 545. 5. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL ZONE,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI- 682 031. 6. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE(LAW & ORDER),POLICE HEADQUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. W.P.(C). NO.10340/2011-N: 7. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF HOME,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. R2 TO R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.10340 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 03rd day of June, 2011 ORDER According to the petitioner, there is a dispute regarding partition of family property between himself and his brother, the first respondent which is pending consideration before learned Munsiff, Muvattupuzha in O.S.No.292 of 2009. While so it is alleged, that on 06.06.2009 when petitioner attempted to construct a compound wall the first respondent assaulted petitioner and his workers. But the police registered case against petitioner, his elder brother and workers as Crime No.1076 of 2009 at the instance of the first respondent. Petitioner was constrained to file a private complaint (Ext.P1) which was taken on file as C.C.No.487 of 2009. On 25.01.2010 it is alleged, the first respondent attempted to hit his car against petitioner, first respondent and his employees attempted to assault him and thereon petitioner gave Ext.P2, complaint to the third respondent on 26.01.2010. But no action was taken on that complaint. Third respondent summoned petitioner to the Police Station on 30.01.2010 as if to record his statement. Third respondent told petitioner that he has received several W.P(C).No.10340 of 2011 -: 2 :- complaints against petitioner regarding the incident which (allegedly) occurred on 25.01.2010. It is alleged that petitioner was taken to different places for investigation and when his relatives and others came to the Police Station, he was released on bail on executing bond. Following that the fourth respondent, fabricating records registered three cases in succession against petitioner on the complaints (allegedly) given by the first respondent and his employees. The FIRs in those cases are Exts.P3 to 5. Those cases were investigated by the fourth respondent and it culminated in submission of final report. Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor has taken those cases on file as C.C.Nos.466, 465 and 464 of 2010 respectively. Petitioner preferred Exts.P6 and P7, representations to respondents 5 and 6 and Ext.P8 ,complaint to the District Police Complaint Authority but, no action was taken. Grievance of petitioner is that Exts.P3 to P5, FIRs were registered on extraneous considerations, whenever he preferred complaints the police refused to take action and he had to file private complaints but the police was too enthusiastic to register cases against him at the instance of the first respondent. According to the petitioner, records were fabricated to make it appear that cases were registered on 29.01.2010 though W.P(C).No.10340 of 2011 -: 3 :- complaints in that regard were obtained by the police only on 30.01.2010. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that Exts.P6 and P7 were enquired into by the appropriate authorities and reports were forwarded to the authorities to whom those complaints were given. Ext.P8, complaint before the District Police Complaint Authority was also considered and the same was also disposed of. Learned Public Prosecutor has invited my attention to the statement submitted by the Dy.S.P, Perumbavoor in answer to the allegations in this petition. It is stated that petitioner and first respondent are brothers and have dispute regarding partition of family properties which has given rise to various incidents based on which cases are registered. Petitioner and first respondent are living on enemical terms. It is stated that action was taken by the fourth respondent and final reports submitted in Exts.P3 to P5, FIRs in accordance with law. 3. Going by Exts.P3 to P5 it would appear that those cases were registered on 29.01.2010 at different times in respect of incidents alleged to have occurred on 25.01.2010. Even according to the petitioner, he gave Ext.P2, complaint on 26.01.2010. Prima facie it does not appear to me that Exts.P3 to P5 are manipulated to make it appear that those cases were W.P(C).No.10340 of 2011 -: 4 :- registered on 29.01.2010 (this is a matter requiring evidence and to be established in the trial of the cases). Learned counsel submitted that regarding Ext.P2, complaint since police did not take action he has filed a private complaint against the first respondent. Now whether it be at the instance of police on behalf of the first respondent and others or by way of private complaints filed by the petitioner, cases are before learned Magistrate and it is at the stage of trial. At this stage, I do not consider it necessary to reopen investigation already completed in Exts.P3 to P5 and direct further investigation. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that in all cases covered by Exts.P3 to P5, petitioner was released from the Police Station on executing bond and if the police were enemical to the petitioner, it was possible for the police to produce petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate with remand report. If petitioner has a case that first respondent and his employees were summoned by the fourth respondent to the Police Station only on 30.01.2010 and cases were registered to make it appear that it was done on 29.01.2010 manipulating record as petitioner contends, it is open to the petitioner to prove that in the course of trial. 4. As I stated, it is open to the petitioner to defend himself in Exts.P3 to P5 cases on appropriate grounds as are W.P(C).No.10340 of 2011 -: 5 :- available to him. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor I do not consider it necessary to direct a re or further investigation of Exts.P3 to P5, cases. 5. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner apprehends harassment at the hand of respondents 3 to 5. Apparently there is no reason to think that respondents 3 to 5 would act otherwise than as provided under law. Respondents 3 to 5 shall ensure that they gave no room for such complaints and that they acted impartially. This writ petition is dismissed with the above directions. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-