IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33305 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. NOORUDEEN.A.A., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, ETTIYATERA HOUSE, KANJOOR, VADAKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, CHENGALKARA, ALUVA TALUK. 2. AZEEZ M.B., AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.BAHARI, MOOKKADA (H) PANAYALIKARA, KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. 3. A.P.MAKKAR PILLAI, S/O.PAREETH, ANDETH (HOUSE), MEKALADY KARA, KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALADY KALADY POLICE STATION, KALADY-683 574. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALADY, KALADY-683 574. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542. 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA-683 101. 5. LAZAR T.O., THENAN (H) KURICHILAKODE KARA, KODANADU VILLAGE, KODANADU P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK-683 544. 6. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAE & ORDER) POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SUSHEEL CYRIAC FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33305 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.33305 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioners have filed this writ petition alleging that respondents 1 to 4 officers of police at various levells are harassing him at the instance of the 5th respondent, which are not justified. On considering this writ petition for admission we directed Sri.Susheel Cyriac the learned Government Pleader who took notice on behalf of police officers to seek instructions. Sri.Susheel Cyriac submitted that accusations of police harassment contained in this writ petition are without any basis. The 5th respondent filed a complaint before the 4th respondent. The complaint was against the petitioners. The complaint was to the effect that petitioners have received a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- from the 5th respondent in connection with a business transaction and was unwilling to repay the amount. The above complaint was enquired into and it was revealed that the dispute was civil and monetary in nature. Hence the parties were advised to move a civil court. In fact the 5th respondent stated that he will rather W.P(C) No.33305 of 2011 2 have recourse to civil remedy. However, later the 5th respondent submitted a complaint before the Chief Minister in the Chief Minister's mass contact programme. The above petition was forwarded to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent made it over to the Kodanad Sub Inspector. It is understood that a crime has been registered. The only question which arises for decision is whether the action of the police officers can be branded as harassment. We have no difficulty to answer that question in the negative. We dispose of this writ petition directing the police officers, the 4th respondent and the police officers under him to issue notice under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the attendance of the petitioner is required in connection with any enquiry or investigation, the officer investigating into the crime stated to have been registered in the Kodanad Police Station is also directed conduct the investigation sincerely and expeditiously. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab