IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17406 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ FEROZ, S/O.Y.A.FAZIL, RANIS, T.C. 4/1691, HOUSE NO.36, BELHEAVEN GARDENS, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY HOME, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMPANOOR. 4. SHIVAPRASAD, S/O.VIDHYADARAN, T.C.4/2239, KURAVANKONAM, MUTTADA P.O. KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. MOHANDAS, RANI HOUSE, KESTON ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAKUMAR FOR R5 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 17406/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.4.08 IN BA 2056/08. EXT.P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.5.08. EXT.P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED ON THE PETITIONER DATED 6.6.08. EXT.P4 - A TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 21.5.08. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 17406 OF 2008-V ----------------------------------------- Dated 14th July, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is an Engineering student. He claims, he is in love with Ms.Ramya Sivaprasad, the daughter of the 4th respondent. The 5th respondent is the father-in-law of another daughter of the 4th respondent. The petitioner submits, the respondents 4 and 5 have influenced the 3rd respondent and the said respondent is trying to falsely implicate him in Crime no.355/2008 of Karamana Police Station, involving the murder of two persons. Earlier, the petitioner moved this Court for anticipatory bail. The said application was disposed of by Ext.P1 order by this Court. The said order would show that the petitioner is required only as a witness in the said crime and he is not an accused. In Ext.P1 order this Court has also ordered that the petitioner must appear before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation of the crime. The petitioner submits, he has been called to the police station several times and he has also appeared WPC 17406/08 2 promptly. But, he is being unnecessarily harassed by the 3rd respondent. So, his father filed Ext.P2 representation before the Director General of Police, detailing the harassment meted out to his son, who is the petitioner herein. 2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioner. According to the said respondent, the petitioner is an accused in three crimes. He has newly taken charge of the investigation of the crime and therefore, he has to question the witnesses. The petitioner was never harassed. He has been called for interrogation only after serving notice. 3. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that he has no connection, whatsoever, with the alleged harassment of the petitioner and he has been unnecessarily impleaded in this writ petition. 4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit and along with that he has produced Ext.P4 E-mail, stated to be received by him from Ms.Ramya Sivaprasad, who is presently in the Gulf. She has alerted him about the plans of her father to do away with him. 5. The police should be conceded power to investigate into the above said crime properly and if the petitioner's presence is required, he is bound to appear on notice. The same cannot be described as a harassment. But, we record the submission of the investigating officer that he will never be WPC 17406/08 3 influenced by extraneous forces in the investigation of the crime and he will call the writ petitioner for interrogation, if necessary, only after issuing notice to him in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner also seeks protection for his life, in the context of the animosity towards him, allegedly harboured by respondents 4 and 5. If there is any specific incident involving threat from the part of the said respondents, the petitioner may alert respondents 2 and 3. In that event, the said officers shall look into the same and take appropriate action, as the occasion demands. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/