IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29945 of 2011(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : - ----------------------- MUHAMMED SHAFEEK, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIM, PANDARATHE KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE NO.544/VIII, PANDALAM PANCHAYAT, PANDALAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DIST BY ADVS. SRI.K.SHRI HARI RAO SMT.N. SHOBHA SRI.K.S. BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: - ------------------------- 1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPCIAL INVESTIGATIN UNIT-I, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM-695 012. 2. B.VIJAYAN, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL INVESTIGATIN UNIT-I, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM-695 012. 3. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, TRIVANDRUM-695 012. R1 TO R3 BY Sr. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.K. ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29945 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.08.2011 OF THE 2nd RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT P2 : COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM DATED 26.03.2011 APPEARED IN THE EVENING DAILY 'FLASH' OF THE KERALA KAUMUDI. EXT P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.11.2010 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C).NO.29945 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The petitioner who claims to be a driver complains that he sought the service of one Surendran who was an auto consultant and because of Sri. Surendran happened to be involved in certain crimes, respondents 1 and 2 - officers of the Vigilance and Anti corruption Bureau are frequently harassing him. 2. On considering the writ petition for admission, we directed the learned Government Pleader to seek instructions from the concerned officers to the correctness of the accusation. Sri. M.K.Aboobacker - senior Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions from the respondent officers submitted that accusations of harassment are without any basis. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime No.7/08/SIU/I registered by the Vigilance and Anti corruption Bureau. The offences alleged against the accused in that crime are under Sections 468,471 and 420 B of the Indian Penal Code. The crime is under investigation. Petitioner’s W.P.(C).NO.29945 OF 2011 : 2 : attendance is required by the police in connection with the investigation. This cannot be branded as harassment. Mr. K. Shri Hari Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the offences alleged against him. He is not an auto consultant as the Government Pleader submitted. He is a driver. He only sought the assistance of Sri. Surendran. He has been made a victim unnecessarily. He is being harassed by the Vigilance. Having considered the submissions addressed at the bar, we are of the view that action of respondents 1 and 2 in insisting on the attendance of the petitioner in connection with the investigation of the crime registered against him also cannot be branded as harassment. However, we dispose of the writ petition directing respondents 1 and 2 that if the attendance of the petitioner is required in future in connection with the investigation of the crime registered against him, they shall issue notice to him in writing. We also permit the petitioner to pursue his remedies against W.P.(C).NO.29945 OF 2011 : 3 : the crime registered available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl