IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32973 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUNJUMON, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.KANNAN, VYPPITHARA HOUSE PUTHUVYPE DESOM, PUTHUVYPU VILLAGE, PUTHUVYPE PO PIN 682 508. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, P.O.NJARAKKAL ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 509. 2. K.P.JOSEPH, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.LATE K.P.POULOSE, KANAYANNUR TALUK ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, THRIKANARVATTOM DESOM ERNAKULAM NORTH PO, 682 018. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JOE KALLIATH ADV. SRI.SAJI.P.JOSEPH FOR R2 SRI.A.JOSEPH GEORGE FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32973 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE LOK ADALAT DT.12.09.2009 EXT.P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN IA.518/2010 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE SUBORDINATE JUDGE. EXT.P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA.671/2011 IN IA.518/2010 IN OS.40.08 EXT.P4:THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DT.15.07.2011 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLECOURT IN OP.2776 OF 2011 DT.24.10.2011. EXT.P6:TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT.1.11.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.32973of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking directions against what is alleges to be harassment by the 1st respondent on him at the instance of the 2nd respondent. Sri.Joe Kalliath, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent Sub Inspector of Police submitted that the accusations of police harassment are without any basis. Pursuant to Ext.P1 award passed by the Lok Adalath in a civil suit referred to the Adalath by the competent civil court, the petitioner was effected with assistance of police through the process of the Court. As the house was found locked up, the Amin broke open the lock as he was authorised to do so. While this process was going on, the wife of the petitioner came to the seen and removed the movables, which had been kept in the house. She issued a receipt to Amin and after the delivery was over the police party went back. Later a complaint was received from the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent that the petitioner W.P(C) No.32973of 2011 2 had trespassed into the building which had been delivered over to the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent and the party went to the house of the petitioner only as part of conducting an equiry into the above complaint. But the petitioner's house was found locked up. Hence what the 1st respondent did was to paste the notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the front door requesting the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent. This action of the 1st respondent cannot be branded as harassment, so submitted by Mr.Joe Kalliath. 2. Mr.T.K.Vipindas, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not correct to say that the house is included in the award passed by the Lok Adalath. The question whether the house is included in the award is presently being enquired into by the court in terms of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The only question which we are called upon in this writ petition is whether the action of the police against the petitioner can be branded as harassment. In view of what was submitted by the learned Government Pleader, we are convinced that the above action does not amount to police harassment. We decline relief and dispose of this writ petition. We record the submissions of the learned Government W.P(C) No.32973of 2011 3 Pleader that no crime is registered. We direct the 1st respondent that if in future the attendance of the petitioner is required in connection with any enquiry or investigation he shall issue notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the petitioner. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab