IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17397 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.R.PRAKASH, AGED 38 YEARS RESIDING AT LAKSHMI BHAVAN, CHADAYAMANGALAM P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SPECIAL BRANCH, OFFICE OF THE SUPERITENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHADAYAMANAGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SHAFEEK AGED 34 YEARS,WORKING AS PEON AT M.M.H.S, BENGLA KUNNU, NILAMEL, KOLLAM DISTRICT RESIDING AT M.R.MANZIL, MULAYAKONNAM, NILAMEL (PO), KOLLAM DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------- W.P.(C) No.17397 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: “i) To issue a writ of mandamus or order directing the 1 st respondent to desisting from harassing the petitioner.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is conducting an automobile workshop. His daughter is aged 13 years and has been studying in M.M.H.School, Benglakunnu, Nilamel, Kollam. The 3rd respondent is a peon of the school. Petitioner came into contact with the 3rd respondent on the visits of the school. At this time, the petitioner gave his mobile number to the 3rd respondent. It is alleged that the 3rd respondent made a telephonic call to the petitioner assuming that the call is attended by his daughter. He used flirting language. Actually, the call was attended by the petitioner's wife. This was brought to his notice. For the line was W.P.(C) No.17397/2010 2 disconnected. Thereafter, the 1st respondent is harassing the petitioner. 3. The learned Government pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner had filed a complaint before the 2nd respondent. He had called the 3rd respondent and warned him. He submits that there is no harassment and there will be no harassment by the 1st respondent as alleged by the petitioner. The above submission is recorded and accordingly the writ petition is closed. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps