IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 32453 of 2009(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. HAMZA, AGED 70 YEARS, ARUPUZHA HOUSE,POMBRA P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. KUNJATHUMMA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.HAMZA, ARUPUZHA HOUSE,POMBRA P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. MOHAMMED SALIH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.HAMZA, ARUPUZHA HOUSE,POMBRA P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN SMT.SEEMA.E.GEORGE SRI.C.MOIDEEN KUTTY SMT.V.H.JASMINE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. NOUSHEEBA, W/O.MOHAMMED SALIH, PAIKADAN HOUSE, MUTHUKURUSSI, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. ABDUL SALAM P., PAIKADAN HOUSE, MUTHUKURISSI, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1, R2 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. R3 & R4 BY ADV. SMT.K.GIRIJA FOR R3,4 SMT.M.A.ZOHRA(MEDIATOR/CONCILIATOR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 32453 OF 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.656/2009 K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.32453 of 2009-B ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following prayer: “to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere in the peaceful enjoyment of the life of the petitioners and not to harass them.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: The Ist petitioner is aged 70 and is a cardiac patient. The 2nd petitioner is the wife of the Ist petitioner and is suffering from various ailments. The 3rd petitioner is the son of petitioners 1 and 2. The 3rd petitioner married the 3rd respondent. There is quarrel and there is a crime registered as evidenced from Ext.P1 FIR under Section 498A read with 34 IPC against all the petitioners. It is stated that petitioners 1 and 2 have approached the Sessions Court and they have been granted anticipatory bail though it is denied to the 3rd petitioner. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and also the WPC No.32453/2009 -2- learned Government Pleader. 4. Apparently there is another proceeding pending as MC No.385/2009 and O.P.No.7924/2009 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad besides Crime No.656/2009 on the file of the Mannarkkad Police Station. These proceedings have been stayed by this Court. There was an attempt at mediation. 5. Today, when the matter was argued it is contended by respondents 4 and 5 that the 3rd petitioner has not complied with the terms of the decision of the Mediator. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 3rd petitioner is even now prepared. He would point out that the 3rd petitioner has already complied with the direction in the order dated 26.11.2009 in relation to the replacement of gold sovereigns except to the extent of 12 sovereigns. 6. In so far as the parties do not appear to be in a position to come to a settlement in terms of the mediation we are constrained to dispose of the writ petition by permitting continuance of the proceedings countenanced by Ext.P1 FIR. Besides the same, we cannot put on hold the proceedings pending as O.P.7924/2009 and M.C.385/2009 any further. WPC No.32453/2009 -3- Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition as follows: Respondents 1 and 2 are free to continue with the investigation of Ext.P1 crime. However, they must bear in mind the anticipatory bail granted in favour of petitioners 1 and 2 and they shall not be unduly harassed. As far as O.P.No.7924/2009 and M.C.No.385/2009 are concerned the said proceedings can go on and a decision taken in accordance with law. We however make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the parties coming to a settlement in the course of the proceedings. With regard to the custody of children also we leave the petitioner with liberty to approach the competent forum and seek appropriate orders in the said regard. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS