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 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20414 of 2011(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SHAJAHAN.C.K., S/O.C.M.KOCHUBAVA, AGED 45 YEARS, CHETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALOOR.P.O.,ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERANAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. VINOD, CHACKALAKAL HOUSE, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KARGIL LANE, KOCHI-18. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, PIN- 682 030. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL ZONE, ERANAKULAM, PIN -682 030. R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.20414/2011-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 22/07/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. WITH COPY TO THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20414 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. Petitioner approached this Court by complaining that, he is being harassed by the 2nd respondent at the behest of the 1st respondent. On getting instructions from the police as directed by us, Smt.Charisma, learned Government Pleader submitted that the accusation of police harassment is not correct. The 1st respondent’s wife filed a complaint before the 2nd respondent alleging that the petitioner had borrowed amounts from her. It was in the context of that complaint that the 2nd respondent invited the petitioner and the complainant to the police station. In the police station, the petitioner admitted that she owed amounts to the 1st respondent’s wife and both parties agreed that the amounts due can be paid off in 2 W.P.(C) No.20414 of 2011 intalments. Endorsement to that effect has been made in the petition register maintained in the police station. There is no harassment to the petitioner and there will not be any harassment in the future ; so submitted the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader submitted further that, the police does not require the attendance of the petitioner any longer in connection with the complaints submitted by the 1st respondent’s wife. We record the above submission of the learned Government Pleader. Mr.P.M.Ziraj learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to Ext.P1. According to him, the allegations raised in Ext.P1 are correct and the learned counsel requested that we direct the 3rd respondent to look into Ext.P1 and take a decision on the same. We are sure that if the 3rd respondent has received Ext.P1, as the petitioner claims, he will hold necessary enquiry into this probably through officers subordinate to him and will take 3 W.P.(C) No.20414 of 2011 a decision on the complaint. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/