IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17952 of 2011(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. VENUGOPAL,VENU BHAVANAM,KUDITHA, KALANJOOR P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THANKAPPAN NAIR,VENU BHAVANAM,KUDITHA, KALANJOOR P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. VISHNU VENUGOPAL,MINOR,REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER,VENUGOPAL.T, VENU BHAVANAM,KUDITHA, KALANJOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. VEENA VENUGOPAL,MINOR,REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER, VENUGOPAL.T, VENU BHAVANAM,KUDITHA, KALANJOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI. 3. AMBILY,VALIYAKALAYIL,EZHAMTHALA, THEKKTHODU P.O,KONNI,PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. SARASAMMA,RAJESH BHAVANBAM, KADUTHA, KALANJOOR P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. W.P.(C). NO.17952/2011-T: 5. SREEJA,KALEECKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KADUTHA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. THULASI,PLAVILAYIL,KADUTHA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. CHARISMA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.17952/2011-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 28/06/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.17952 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C. Kuriakose, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the first petitioner (husband of the 3rd respondent) and members of his family including minor children (petitioners 3 and 4) complaining that they are being harassed unnecessarily by respondent No.2. On considering the allegations involved in this writ petition and the submissions of Mr.P. Sreekumar, learned counsel for the petitioners this court on 4.7.2011 passed the following interim order. “Not admitted. Post on 7.7.2011. As directed by us, the Government Pleader has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Government Pleader will seek instructions from the 2nd respondent regarding the allegations and accusations contained in this writ petition. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent is directed not to insist on the appearance of the petitioners 3 and 4 who are minors before him in connection with any complaint or petition.” W.P.(C).17952/11 -2- 2. Today on instructions, Smt. Charisma, learned Government Pleader submitted that the 2nd respondent has not harassed the petitioners. The 2nd respondent received a complaint from a group of members of the Kuditha Devi Kudumbasree complaining that the 3rd respondent, who is the wife of the 1st petitioner, had cheated them by borrowing substantial amounts. The 2nd respondent only summoned the 3rd respondent first. But the 3rd respondent informed the 2nd respondent that the petitioner is also beneficiary of the loan availed by the 3rd respondent from the complainant. This was the context in which the petitioner was summoned. The police never insisted on the presence of the minors. Minors were brought to the 2nd respondent by petitioners 1 and 2 themselves for the purpose of testifying regarding what is described as the immoral practices of the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent does not want to intervene in the disputes between the complainant and the 3rd respondent or any matter concerning petitioners 1 and 2 presently. The complainants were advised to have recourse to civil proceedings if amounts are due to them. The police has not W.P.(C).17952/11 -3- harassed and does not intend to harass them. 3. Having heard the submissions addressed at the bar we are of the view that no case is made out for issuing direction against the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioners. 4. The writ petition is disposed of declining the relief sought for and further making it clear that, if any amounts are due to the complainant before the 2nd respondent from the petitioners or even from the the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent shall not intervene for the purpose of recovering the amounts. In other words, the attendance of the petitioners shall not be insisted upon by the 2nd respondent in connection with any complaint that amounts are due from the 3rd respondent or from the petitioners. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb