IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20813 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- FEBIN K.XAVIER, KOONAMPILAVU HOUSE, THALORE PO, THRISSUR DIST-680 306. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SMT.THUSHARA JAMES RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHUKKADU POLICE, PUTHUKKADU , THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 301. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHUKKADU POLICE STATION, PUTHUKKADU, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 301. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI T K VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 20813 of 2010 B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this court seeking the following reliefs: i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the first and second respondents not to unnecessarily enter the house and premises of the petitioner, threaten him and his family and subject them to harassment. ii) declare that the actions of the first and second respondents are illegal as the petitioner has not committed any offence.” 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner is an automobile repairing and modeling entrepreneur. W.P.(C).No. 20813 of 2010 2 He purchases vehicle, particularly cars, which are damaged by way of accident, after they are inspected and surveyed by the Insurance Companies. Such cars are purchased by the petitioner at reduced rates and they are repaired and altered at a workshop so as to make them operative and functional. Later the repaired vehicle is put for sale by th petitioner. 3. On 19.2.2010 the petitioner purchased a Maruti car with a particular engine number and chassis number from one Sasikumar, the then registered owner of the said car. Thereafter he gave the car for repairs, corrections and alterations to a nearby workshop. He was constantly monitoring the work to make the damaged car into an operative one. 4. The second respondent, on a wrong understanding of facts and circumstances, alleged that the petitioner has committed an offence by altering the motor vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has altered the vehicle in compliance with W.P.(C).No. 20813 of 2010 3 Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondents are unnecessarily harassing the petitioner by entering his house and premises and threatening the members of his family. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the party respondents and the learned Government Pleader. 6. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the allegations made by the petitioner are not correct. He would submit that it has come to the notice of the police authorities that vehicles which are in a total loss are purchased by some persons and later persons who commit theft make use of the chassis numbers of those vehicles to facilitate illegal activities. As of now there is no apprehension that the petitioner is involved in any such case. It is submitted that there is no crime registered against the petitioner and there is no intention to proceed against the petitioner. However, in view of this case, the police may search/investigate, it is submitted. W.P.(C).No. 20813 of 2010 4 7. We record the above submissions and close this Writ Petition. However, we make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the police authorities, if circumstances so warrant, to conduct lawful search and investigation in respect of the petitioner also. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm