IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24319 of 2010(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. BOBY SUREDRAN, S/O.LATE T.R.SUREDRAN, HOUSE NO.36/851 B, SPICES STREET, ERNAKULAM NORTH. 2. MEERA SUREDRAN, W/O.LATE T.R.SUREDRAN, HOUSE NO. 36/851 B, SPICES STREET, ERNAKULAM NORTH. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.JAI GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (CENTRAL ZONE), MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. 5. SRI.NISSAMUDEEN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH. 6. SRI.P.R.DEVADASAN, KRISHNA SREE', MARADU POST, ERNAKULAM-PIN-682304. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.24319 of 2010-L ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take immediate action to desist the 5th respondent and his proxies from harassing the petitioner and from interfering in the civil dispute if any between the petitioner and the 6th respondent. ii) to declare that the 5th respondent has no manner of right to harass the petitioner misusing his official capacity in the alleged dispute between the petitioner and the 6th respondent. iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 2 to 4 to take immediate action on Exhibits P2 and P3 respectively as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time limit to be prescribed by this Honorable Court.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: First petitioner is the son of the second petitioner. The ring exchange ceremony of the first petitioner with the daughter of the 6th respondent was convened. Ext.P1 photographs is pressed into service in this regard. It is the further case of the petitioners that the father of the Ist WPC No.24319/2010 -2- petitioner passed away after the ceremony. It would appear that the 6th respondent is withdrawing from the marriage and he further demanded that one bracelet allegedly handed over during the ring exchange function is to be returned. The demand for return of bracelet is routed through the 5th respondent police officer. It is accordingly, petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that there was a complaint from the 6th respondent that when he demanded the bracelet from the petitioners, petitioners abused him. He would submit that petitioners will not be harassed in the matter of return of bracelet and that if presence of the petitioners is necessary, it will be preceded by notice under Section 160 Cr.PC. We record the said submission. We leave it open to the official respondents to register and investigate crime in accordance with law, if any cognizable offence is made out. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS