IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1064 of 2008(B) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- DR. ANTONY DANIEL BDS, S/O. A.J.DANIEL, 1/1140, KIT KAT ROAD, COCHIN-1. BY ADV. SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, FORT KOCHI. 3. S.I. OF POLICE, FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.A.SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 1064/2008 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE BILL ISUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE WARRANTY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DT. 2/1/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== W.P(C).No.1064 of 2008 ======================== Dated this the 21st day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that respondents 1 to 3 are harassing him. He is a Dentist. He treated an Irish lady by name Sinead Brigid Cahalan. She had a complaint that the petitioner levied excessive professional charges. She was supported by the local people. Based on the complaint filed by her, the third respondent is summoning the petitioner and harassing him. He is compelling to pay back the amount received by him towards professional charges. In the above background, this writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs: "a) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction to the respondents not to harass the petitioner, questioning the professional services rendered by him to any person. b) Issue appropriate directions to the -: 2 :- respondents not to use the colour of their office for compelling the petitioner for any settlement with the petitioner's clients, on account of professional services rendered by him." 2. According to the respondents, the Irish lady filed a petition before the second respondent. Later she filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court concerned. A crime was registered against him. Now the police is investigating the crime. It is also pointed out that at the instance of the petitioner, the police visited the petitioner's clinic twice. He was constrained to call the police in view of the hue and cry created by the local people. 3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the police has no intention to harass the petitioner. They are only investigating the crime. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner moved for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court. It was submitted on behalf of the police that no crime was registered against him and therefore, the application was closed. So, the present submission may not be correct or the submission made before the Sessions Court may be wrong. -: 3 :- 4. The learned Government Pleader gave the crime number registered against him as Crime No.24 of 2008 of Fort Cochin police station. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the submission. Recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the police has no intention to harass the petitioner and they are only investigating the crime in accordance with law, this writ petition is closed. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 21/1