IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28850 of 2011(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. RAZIYA BEEVI, W/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY,THENGUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, AMBALATHUM MUGHAL,AERAM,THADIKKADU P.O., ANCHAL,KOLLAM 2. IBRAHIM KUTTY, THENGUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, AMBALATHUM MUGHAL,AERAM,THADIKKADU P.O., ANCHAL,KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.T.PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA RURAL, KOLLAM PIN 691 506 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR P.O.,KOLLAM PIN 691 305 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL P.O.,KOLLAM PIN 691 536 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, CHADAYAMANGALAM,KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 691 534 5. SMT.FATHIMA BEEVI @ PATHUMMAL, W/O. ABDUL MAJEED,KARIKKATHIL VEEDU,NETTAYAM, NILAMEL P.O,KOLLAM PIN 691 535 tss W.P.(C) NO.28850/2011 6. SRI.SULAIMAN, S/O.ALIYARU KUNJU,ITTIVILA VEEDU, NILAMEL MURI,NILAMEL P.O.,KOLLAM PIN 691 535 7. SRI.SALIM, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, SIJI COTTAGE,KARIKKATHIL VEEDU, NILAMEL P.O.,KOLLAM PIN 691 535. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.28850/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-11, KOTTARAKKARA AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 EXT.P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT O.S.NO.121/2011 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT,KOTTARAKKARA EXT.P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2011 IN W.P(C) 5481/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03.03.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C).NO.28850 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The petitioners, wife and husband, have filed this writ petition seeking directions against what is described as police harassment at the instance of respondents 5 to 7. 5th respondent is the mother of the 1st petitioner and 6th respondent is a person who has purchased the property from the 5th respondent. 7th respondent is the brother of the 1st petitioner and the son of the 5th respondent . 2. Mr. M.K. Aboobacker, the learned senior Government Pleader on instructions from respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the accusations of harassment by the police levelled in the writ petition are without any basis. The 5th respondent had entrusted a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs with the 2nd petitioner with the direction that the amount should be deposited in a bank and that the second petitioner should maintain the 5th respondent with the interest income generated from the above deposit. The 2nd petitioner after receiving the cash did not do as directed. The 5th respondent filed a complaint W.P.(C).NO.28850 OF 2011 : 2 : before the 2nd respondent regarding the same and that the complaint was forwarded by the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent. Attendance of the 2nd petitioner was requested by the police in connection with an enquiry into the above complaint. This cannot be branded as harassment. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the real issue between the parties is not what the learned Government Pleader has stated. The real issue is something else. It concerns sale of a property by the 5th respondent in favour of the 6th respondent. 4. The only question which we are called upon to decide whether there is any justification for issuing the directions sought for in this writ petition. We are convinced that the action of the police in insisting on the attendance of the second petitioner cannot be branded as harassment by the police. It was submitted by Mr. M.K. Aboobacker, the learned senior Government Pleader that at the moment the police do not require the attendance of the petitioner as no crime has been registered, but the second petitioner assured the 4th respondent that he will facilitate W.P.(C).NO.28850 OF 2011 : 3 : the deposit of the sum received from his mother-in-law in a bank. Having considered the reverse submission addressed at the bar, it is too early for us to issue the directions sought for in the writ petition. We decline the relief and dispose of the writ petition directing the officers of the police including the 4th respondent to issue notice to the petitioners under Section 160 Cr.P.C if and when the attendance of the petitioners is required by them in connection with the matter. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. Sd/- K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl