IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 12468 of 2011(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- AIMA MANPOWER SERVICE (P) LIMITED, ISSAC TOWERS, DOOR NO.37/1624, SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE ROAD, JEWAHAR NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER SURESH NAIR. BY ADV. SRI.SREEJITH S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. KURIAKO EBY, S/O.KURIAKO, KUTHAKUDAYIL, KINGINIMATTOM P.O., PALAKKAMATTOM, ERNAKULAM, 682 311. 3. KURIAKOSE TUTTU, S/O.P.P. VARKEY KURIAKOSE, PARA PARA HOUSE, 52/119 A, THEVARA P.O., KONTHURUTHI, ERNAKULAM, 682 013. 4. P.R. SURAJ, S/O.V. RADHAKRISHNAN, ARIKKATHAKALAM, PEZHUMCODE (H), NECHUR P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678 772. 5. ROBIN THOMAS, S/O.K.C. THOMAS, KADANGATHKAROTT (H), EDIVANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM, 679 329. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.T. LILLY. R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.J.SOLOMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 12468 of 2011(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY RESPONDENT 2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 12468 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner who claims to be the authorised officer of M/s. AIMA Manpower Service (P) Limited who claims to be an exclusive agent in India for a London based College, viz., A 7 S Training College, which conducts training classes for candidates to improve and shape their communicative skills in English has approached this court complaining that he is being harassed by the first respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Kadavanthra at the behest of respondents 2 to 5. Smt. K.T. Lilly, learned Government Pleader on the basis of instructions received from the first respondent submitted that the accusations of harassment by first respondent are without any basis. Complaints are being received against the petitioner from several students who had entered into agreement with the petitioner company for undergoing WP(C). 12468/11 -2- training. On a previous occasion Crime No. 772/10 was registered and that crime is under investigation. Presently, the party respondents in this writ petition filed similar complaints. On receiving the complaints, as part of enquiry, the attendance of the petitioner in the police station was sought for. In the police station the petitioner took the stand that he will settle all his issues with the party respondents. Hence no crime was registered. The action of the police in insisting on the attendance of the petitioner cannot be branded as harassment. Even though Sri.Sreejith S. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to various clauses in the agreement in question and tried to argue that there is nothing unlawful about the agreement and also that whatever amounts were collected from the party respondents have been invested in giving training to them we are of the view that in the present jurisdiction we WP(C). 12468/11 -3- need not have to consider those submissions. The only issue which we are called upon to decide is whether the action of the police can be branded as harassment and whether the directions sought for are to be granted. In our opinion, the action of the police in insisting on the attendance of the petitioner before the police station was in connection with enquiry into the complaint submitted against the petitioner by the party respondents and hence such action cannot be branded as police harassment. We decline jurisdiction and dispose of this writ petition. However, we direct the first respondent that if in future any complaint is received against the petitioner and it becomes necessary to have the attendance of the petitioner notice under Section 160 Cr. P.C. should be issued. If during the course of enquiry it is revealed that it is necessary to arrest the petitioner, the provisions of Section 41A to D of the Cr. P.C. and the WP(C). 12468/11 -4- guidelines issued by the Supreme Court regarding arrest should be adhered to. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-