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 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27973 of 2011(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. DHANEESH.M.D, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.DASAN, MANKUZHIPARAMBIL, KIZHAKKETHOPPU, MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR, ERANAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. DASAN M.B, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.BALAN,MANKUZHIPARAMBIL, KIZHAKKETHOPPU, MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR, ERANAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 513. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 513. 3. SACHITHANANDAN, PONPANATTU HOUSE, OPP.K.M.K.JUNCTION,PARAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 513. 4. SOUMYA, D/O.SACHITHANANDAN, PONPANATTU HOUSE,OPP.K.M.K.JUNCTION, PARAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 513. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STU PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 27973 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. Second petitioner is the father of the 1st petitioner. In this writ petition the petitioners are seeking directions to restrain respondents 1 and 2 from causing what is termed as 'harassment' to the petitioners. Allegation is that the petitioners are being summoned by the first respondent constantly on the basis of complaint submitted by the 4th respondent. It is further alleged that the first respondent had threatened the first petitioner and compelled him to marry the 4th respondent. According to the petitioners, the actions taken by the first respondent in this regard are totally without any jurisdiction. Hence this writ petition is filed. 2. When the matter came up for consideration, we directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions from respondents 1 and 2, regarding veracity of the accusations. Sri.M.K.Aboobacker learned senior Government Pleader WPC.No.27973/2011 2 appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, a complaint was received from the 4th respondent alleging that the the first petitioner had married her by executing an agreement attested before a Notary Public. Subsequently, the first petitioner deserted the 4th respondent and withdrawn from the agreement. On the basis of the said complaint, the petitioners were summoned to the station house. But, it was revealed that the 4th respondent is already under wed lock with another person, which is not legally separated. However, it is conceded that the presence of the petitioners is no more required for any purpose of enquiry or investigation. 3. We record the submissions made on behalf of the first respondent. We notice that the so called matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the 4th respondent is not a matter coming within the jurisdiction of respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, we restrain respondents 1 and 2 from interfering in any manner with the said dispute. 4. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. We make it clear that if the presence of the petitioners are required for any purpose of enquiry with respect WPC.No.27973/2011 3 to any further complaint, the respondents 1 and 2 shall issue notice as contemplated under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk