IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2045 of 2011(E) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- PRAVEEN, S/O. PRASANNA RAJAN, PRAVEEN NIVAS PORUTHANMAN PULLIMATH.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAED QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANGODE POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 609. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 2045/2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.756/2010. P2: COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.456/2010 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION. P3: COPY OF THE PRISCRIPTION GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER. P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1 AND 2 RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.2045 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court alleging that he is being harassed by the respondents/police officials unnecessarily. He prays that directions under Article 227 may be issued to ensure that such harassment is stopped forthwith. 2. The petition was admitted. Notice was ordered to respondents 1 to 4. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that there has been no vexation or harassment to the petitioner on the part of the police officials. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner's father had a strained relationship with his wife and children including the petitioner. He was hence residing with one Sudhamani, allegedly a cousin of his. He was missing from 21.11.2010. On the complaint of the said Sudhamani, a crime was registered under the caption 'person missing' on 25.11.2010 as Crime No.756/2010 of Pangode Police Station. Police is investigating into that crime. The father of the petitioner has not been traced so WPC No.2045/2011 2 far. The various pieces of information collected in the course of investigation point the accusing finger at the petitioner. The needle of suspicion is undoubtedly directed against the petitioner. The petitioner had admittedly seen his father on 21.11.2010 at a wedding. According to him, his father returned thereafter and he does not know his whereabouts. But, the investigation reveals that at 5.42 p.m., as per the mobile telephone call records, the petitioner had contacted his father. He had hired a car from a friend of his on the alleged excuse that he wanted to meet his father. The petitioner is not giving straight forward and forthright replies to the question to him posed by the investigating officers. In these circumstances, for a proper investigation of the crime, the petitioner was questioned. He may have to be questioned again. The police is bound to conduct a proper investigation and trace the allegedly missing person. The petitioner cannot describe such attempts by the police as harassment or vexation and he cannot be permitted avoid and delay the process of investigation. He must co-operate with the investigators in the attempt to trace his own father. No directions under Article 226 may be issued in favour of the petitioner, it is WPC No.2045/2011 3 submitted. 3. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are unable to agree that the attempt made by the investigating officers to contact the petitioner to question him and to ascertain details from him can be described as vexation or harassment. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that there shall be no vexation or harassment against the petitioner, but the crime will have to be investigated properly, effectively and efficiently. For that, the petitioner may have to be questioned again. But, such questioning, it is undertaken, shall be done perfectly in accordance with law. 4. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. In the circumstances of the case, we are not persuaded to invoke our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/