IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17260 of 2008(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. SUMA RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 26, W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT 'LAKSHMI NIVAS', HOUSE NO.65/MYTHRI NAGAR, PATTATHANAM P.O.,KOLLAM 21. 2. R.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 28, S/O.T.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, LAKSHMI NIVAS, HOUSE NO.65/MYTHRI NAGAR, PATTATHANAM P.O., KOLLAM 21. 3. P.A.SUJESHLAL, AGED 28, S/O.PUSHKARAN, VAYALIL PUTHEN VEEDU, AMMAN NAGAR, PATTATHANAM P.O., KOLLAM 21. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM (EAST) POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM (EAST) POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 5. MANAGER, MADONNA ELECTRONICS, MANORAMA JUNCTION, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R5 SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN FOR R5 SMT.TULASI PANICKER FOR R5 SRI.K.T.THOMAS FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SALIM P.A. FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.17260/2008 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF QUOTATION DTD. 12TH OCTOBER 2005 FOR PURCHASE OF STUDIO UNIT. EXT.P2: COPY OF CASH RECEIPT FOR PURCHASING THE UNIT ISSUED BY 'DEXTEROUS SOFTWARE' DTD. 07/12/2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE WARRANTY CARD DTD. 26/04/2006 ISSUED BY THE 'SONY' INDIA PVT.LTD. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE SERVICE JOB SHEET ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD. 11/07/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/08/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO SONY INDIA DTD. 14/09/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD. 14/09/2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE CONSUMER CASE NO.83/2008 DTD. 11/04/2008. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPLY SEND BY DEXTEROUS SOFTWARE DTD. 30/09/2007. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 01/06/2008 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 02/06/2008 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE FIR 610/2008 DTD. 01/06/2008 OF KOLLAM (EAST) POLICE STATION. EXT.P13: COPY OF RECEIPT SHOWING THE ACCEPTANCE OF EXHIBIT P10 DTD. 01/06/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R5(A): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 31/05/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 17260 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. Petitioners 1 and 2 are wife and husband. The third petitioner is their employee. The petitioners 1 and 2 are running a video film editing unit. They purchased a Sony Camera for the purpose of that unit from Kannur. The 5th respondent is the authorized service centre of Sony camera in Kollam. The third petitioner entrusted the camera for certain repairs with the 5th respondent on 11-7-2007. Later, the Camera was never returned. So, the first petitioner has moved the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum pointing out the non-returning of the Camera. While so, the second respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, called the petitioners 2 and 3 to enquire about the complaint filed WPC. 17260/2008 -2- by the 5th respondent. According to the said officer, the camera was already received back by the third petitioner. The second and third petitioners appeared before the 2nd respondent and explained the correct facts. Thereafter, the first respondent asked the third petitioner to appear before him. Respondents 1 and 2 threatened the third petitioner and informed him that a crime has been registered against the petitioners in connection with the incident. So, the third petitioner has preferred Exts.P10 and P11 representations before the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police respectively complaining about police harassment. Thereafter, this writ petition is filed. 2. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the camera was, in fact, received by the third petitioner and another. Since the petitioners are insisting for returning of the camera, the 5th respondent has moved the police and a crime has been registered against the third WPC. 17260/2008 -3- petitioner and another under Section 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal code. 3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the allegations against the police are unfounded. The police have registered a crime against the third petitioner and another in connection with the missing of the camera. The police, in fact, investigated the crime only in accordance with law. The allegations of harassment are unfounded, it is submitted. Having regard to the facts of the case, we record the aforementioned submission of the learned Government Pleader. No further directions are required in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI ks. JUDGE WPC. 17260/2008 -4-