IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9347 of 2011(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- LAKSHMI, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.BAIJU, MUNDAKKELATHU HOUSE, MUROPPEL, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI. K.SHAJ, SRI.SAJJU.S. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHENCHERRY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 533. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARANMULA POLICE STATION,PATHANAMTHITTA-689 533. 4. RADHAMANY, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.BOSE, MKUNDAKKELATHU, MURUPPEL, PARIYARAM P.O., ELANTHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 537. 5. LALITHAMBIKA, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.RAMANUJAN, ANASWARAYIL, EDAPARIYARAM P.O., ELANTHOOR-689 537. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH R5 BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, SRI.C.R.REGHUNATHAN, SRI.M.V.ASHIM, SRI.B.HARRYLAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.9347/2011 P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 3/3/2011 BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN. P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.262/P/AIG/(PG)/PHO/2011 DTD. 3/3/2011 ISSUED FROM THE POLICE HEADQUARTERS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9347 of 2011-P ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner - a woman, has come to this Court complaining about harassment by the local police. She prays that directions under Art.226 of the Constitution may be issued in her favour to put an end to such harassment or vexation by the police. 2. According to the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5, both of them are women, had entered into a monetary transaction. In the agreement executed between respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner has figured as a witness. Now respondents 4 and 5 have fallen out. The 5th respondent has unnecessarily with vexatious intent, lodged a complaint against the petitioner herein. Police are unnecessarily calling her and causing harassment and vexation to her. It is, in these circumstances and with these averments, that the petitioner has come to this Court. 3. Service is complete. The 4th respondent has entered appearance. W.P.(C) No.9347 of 2011 -: 2 :- 4. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that a complaint was received from the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent in the said complaint had raised allegations against the petitioner. Contrary to what the petitioner submits, it is the case of the 5th respondent that the petitioner was not a mere witness; but was really a surety/ guarantor in that transaction. It is, in these circumstances, that the 5th respondent raised allegations against the petitioner. Police had received the said complaint. No crime was registered. Enquiry was made into that petition. 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that the police are now convinced that the complaint does not reveal any culpable offence . There is purely a civil dispute between the parties. Police do not want to intervene or get involved in the said civil dispute. The petitioner shall not be called to the Police Station in connection with the said transaction between respondents 4 and 5. This submission may be accepted and further proceedings may be closed, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader. The apprehension of the petitioner of the possibility of vexation and W.P.(C) No.9347 of 2011 -: 3 :- harassment does not appear to be true or genuine any more in the light of the submission of the learned Government Pleader. We are, satisfied, that no specific directions need be issued. 7. In the result, accepting the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge