IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31812 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- VELAYUDHAN T.V, SON OF VELAPPAN, AGED 55 YEARS, THOPPIL HOUSE, VYMELIL ROAD, CHITTOOR POST, SOUTH CHITTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE(CRIMES), CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 011 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, KOCHI CITY,ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 011 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CIRCLE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 011 4. SUB INSPETOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 011 5. ADV. GEORGE JOHNSON, O/O M/S LAW BOOK CENTRE, ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 011 R1 TO R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.JASMINE R5 BY SRI.K.RAMKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.31812/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE DAUGHTER-INL-LAW OF THIS PETITIONER IN WRITING,BEFORE THE VANITHA POLICE STATION SUB INSPECTOR. EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NUMBER 853 OF 2011 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT POLICE STATION. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23-03-2011 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 27-06-2011 PREFERRED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. EXT.P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE SENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL DATED 08-07-2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31812 of 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of December 2011 J U D G M E N T Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that in view of the fact that the entire proceeding in Crime No.853/2011 has already been quashed by this Court, nothing survives for consideration of this Court. The learned counsel appearing for R5 submits that it is clearly an abuse of process of court since petitioner's daughter-in-law was a party to the earlier proceeding in Crl.M.C.No.1891/2011 and so petitioner must be deemed to have had the knowledge of the order passed therein. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was unaware of the proceedings. That submission may not be correct but however no further order is required to be passed in this petition. R5 can seek appropriate relief by approaching appropriate forum. This writ petition is hence dismissed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J UDGE. Jvt