IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 13744 of 2010(P) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJAMONY,W/O.KRISHNAMOORTHY,AGED 27 YEARS,KUNNATH-HOUSE, ERAVATHODI,KANIYARKODE PO, THIRUVILWAMALA,THRISSUR DT-680 594 . BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THRISSUR RANGE. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,THRISSUR. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHELAKKARA CIRCLE,CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR. 4. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PAZHAYANNOOR POLICE STATION, PAZHAYANNOOR PO, THRISSUR DT. 5. PREVENTIVE OFFICER, PAZHAYANNOOR EXCISE RANGE, RANGE OFFICE, PAZHAYANNOOR,THRISSUR. 6. SASIDHARAN,C.I.OF POLICE,CHELAKKARA CIRCLE,CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR. 7. MAHENDAR SINGH,S.I. OF POLICE, PAZHAYANNOOR POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DT. 8. MATHAI,ADDL.S.I..PAZHAYANNOOR POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DT. WP(C).No. 13744 of 2010(P) -2- 9. PRAJEESH, DRIVER,PAZHAYANNOOR POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DT. 10. BINU,CONSTABLE,PAZHAYANNOOR POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DT. 11. GIREESAN, PREVENTIVE OFFICER, PAZHAYANNOOR EXCISE RANGE, RANGE OFFICE, PAZHAYANNOOR,THRISSUR. 12. SHAIK,CONSTABLE,CHELAKKARA CIRCLE OFFICE, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR. 13. ASHARAF, CONSTABLE,CHELAKKARA CIRCLE OFFICE, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR. 14. VELAMMAL,W/O.RAMASWAMI,MUTHALI, ERAVATHODI,KANIYARKODE PO,THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR DT-680 594. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13744 of 2010(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND DATED NI, AS CMP NO.1356/08 FILED BEFORE THE VIGILANCE COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND DATED NIL AS CMP NO.2697/08 FILED BEFORE THE VIGILANCE COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF the COMPLAINT DATED 11/01/10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND TO THE RDO, THRISSUR. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19/01/10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 02/02/10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15/02/10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE KELSA. EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 22/02/10 OF KELSA. EXT.P8:- TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD DATED 28/03/10 ISSUED BY THE CHC THIRUVILWAMALA. EXT.P9:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25/03/10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MINISTER FOR EXCISE. EXT.P10:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27/03/10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HOME MINISTER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.13744 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner, a lady has approached this Court seeking directions against what she describes in this Writ Petition as harassment by the Police. On considering this Writ Petition for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to seek instructions from respondents 3 and 11 against whom accusations of harassment are made. Sri.Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran, the learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions from the 11th respondent submitted that Sri.Krishna Moorthy, the husband of the petitioner is accused in three crimes registered by the Police, Pazhayannoor Excise Range as Crime Nos.10/08, 17/11 and 18/11. He submitted on the basis of instructions from R3 that yet another crime, Crime No.215/06 is also pending investigation against the petitioner's husband. The W. P. C. No.13744 of 2010 -2- officers investigating these crimes and personnel under them only went over to the petitioner's residential house and searched for her husband who was all along absconding. The petitioner is in the habit of filing complaints before the higher ups alleging that the police officers are attempting to outrage her modesty whenever they tried to conduct raids on the residential house in search of her absconding husband. The action of the police officers cannot be branded as harassment. It is the action of the petitioner which should be condemned, so submitted Sri.Dhanesh Mathew. 2. Sri.Shoby K. Francise, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, does not agree. According to him, every word of what is stated by the petitioner is true. He pointed out that the petitioner, a hapless woman was being given legal assistance by the Kerala State Legal Services Authority. He drew our attention to Exts.P1 to P10. The police are harassing the petitioner even in cases where investigation of the crimes registered against her husband have been completed and final reports have been W. P. C. No.13744 of 2010 -3- submitted. In many of the cases the petitioner's husband was given clean acquittal. 3. The only question which we are called upon to decide in this Writ Petition is there is warrant for issuance of directions sought for against the alleged police harassment. Having regard to the facts attending on this case, we are inclined to answer that question in the negative. 4. However, we dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents who are police officers that if in future the attendance of the petitioner is necessary in connection with any enquiry or investigation, the petitioner should be issued with notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- W. P. C. No.13744 of 2010 -4-