IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26486 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. C.M. RAPHEL @ BABY, S/O.MATHEW, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, ESI ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH. 2. JIBIN, S/O.C.M. RAPHEL @ BABY, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, E.S.I ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. C.M. JESSY, D/O. MATHEW, AGED 49 YEARS, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, E.S.I ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH-682 018. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH (KASBA) POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-682 018. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.T. LILLY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.26486/2011-I: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 07/09/2011 FILED BY THE R.1. BEFORE THE R.2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 26486 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The petitioners who are father and son respectively have approached this court complaining that at the behest of the first respondent who is none other than the sister of the first petitioner, the second respondent Sub Inspector of Police is harassing them. Pursuant to directions issued by us, the learned Government Pleader Smt. K.T. Lilly has obtained instructions. Smt. Lilly submitted that the accusations of harassment are untrue. The first respondent filed a complaint against the second petitioner. The allegations in the complaint was that second petitioner had stolen camera, ATM card and such other personal belongings of the first respondent. The police directed the second petitioner to be present. It was in connection with the enquiry into the above complaint that the attendance of WP(C).26486/11 -2- the second petitioner was insisted. After interrogation, the second petitioner was released and attendance of the petitioners is no longer required. The learned counsel for the petitioner per contra would draw our attention to Ext.P1 and submit that in Ext.P1 complaint submitted by the 1st respondent there was no specific accusations against the petitioners. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards Ext.P1 seems to be correct. Whatever it is, we are not prepared to brand the action of the police in insisting on the attendance of the second petitioner in police station as harassment. After all the police have received Ext.P1 complaint and it was in connection with enquiry into that complaint that the attendance of the second petitioner was requested for. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the attendance of the petitioner is no longer required in connection with the present enquiry. We dispose of the writ petition with a WP(C).26486/11 -3- direction to the second respondent to issue notice to the petitioner under Section 160 Cr.P.C. in case of attendance of the petitioner is required in future in connection with any enquiry or investigation. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-