IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34217 of 2010(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. K.V. GOPINATHAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KADAMBANAD HOUSE, KOTHADU.P.O, ERNAKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT QUARTER NO. II (B)/12, POLICE QUARTERS COMPLEX, THEVARA, PERUMANOOR.P.O, KOCHI -15. 2. RAJASREE.C.R, W/O. GOPINATHAN, KADAMBANAD HOUSE, KOTHADU.P.O, ERNAKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT QUARTER NO. II (B)/12, POLICE QUARTERS COMPLEX, THEVARA, PERUMANOOR.P.O, KOCHI -15. 3. ABDUL BARI.D.N, S/O. MOHAMMED, DARUL RAHMATH HOUSE, KUMBALAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI. RAMPRASAD UNNI, SRI. K.P. MADHU, SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. ........2..... :-2-: W.P.(C). NO.34217/2010-B: 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM - 682 021. 5. SRI.V.G. RAVINDRANATH, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (ESTATE OFFICER, POLICE QUARTERS, THEVARA), ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM-682 013. 6. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 TO R4 & R6 BY A.D.G.P SRI. P.N. SUKUMARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34217 of 2010-B ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition complaining about harassment by the police. Interestingly, the 1st petitioner is himself is a police official. He is now said to be under suspension. The 2nd petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The 3rd petitioner is a dismissed Police Constable who is said to be a friend of petitioners 1 and 2. 2. There are allegations against the petitioner and both departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings have been initiated against the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner now complains of harassment by the respondents. 3. What are the pieces of conduct which are complained of? First of all, it is contended that his peaceful residence in the official quarters allotted to him is being interrupted. W.P.(C) No. 34217 of 2010 -: 2 :- 4. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions, on behalf of all the respondents, undertakes that there shall be no objection whatsoever or any obstruction or inconvenience caused to the peaceful residence of petitioners 1 and 2 in the quarters allotted to the 1st petitioner. We accept that submission of the learned A.D.G.P. on behalf of the respondents/police officials. 5. It is next complained that petitioners 1 and 2 are not permitted to park vehicles in the premises of the quarter allotted to them. The learned A.D.G.P., after taking instructions, submits that the respondents shall not raise any objection to the parking of one vehicle in the compound of the 1st petitioner's quarters, provided that vehicle belongs to petitioners 1 or 2. The learned A.D.G.P. submits that there was objection against unauthorized parking of vehicles and hence action was taken. If the vehicle belongs either to the 1st petitioner or the 2nd petitioner, no objection whatsoever shall be raised against parking of the vehicle, undertakes the learned A.D.G.P. on behalf of the respondents/police officials. We accept that submission also. 6. The next complaint is that the 1st petitioner is being unnecessarily called to the Police Station. According to the 1st petitioner, this is resorted to only to vex and harass him. The W.P.(C) No. 34217 of 2010 -: 3 :- learned A.D.G.P., on behalf of the respondents, undertakes that the petitioners shall not be called to the Police Station except in accordance with law after issuing the requisite notice in writing to them. We accept that undertaking also. If legally the petitioners are bound to appear before the police in connection with any investigation, they cannot claim a blanket order of protection describing the same to be harassment. Therefore a blanket order saving the petitioners from the obligation to appear before the police cannot also be given. 7. We do, in these circumstances, find that it is not necessary to issue any further specific directions. We accept the undertaking made on behalf of the respondents by the learned A.D.G.P. Consequently we find that it is not necessary to issue any specific directions under Art.226 of the Constitution. 8. Recording the above facts/undertakings, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(C) No. 34217 of 2010 -: 4 :-