IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 33780 of 2007(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. PRATHAP, SUMA NIVAS, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM. 2. DEEPA, SUMA NIVAS, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS, SRI.S.SHAJI, SRI.H.HARIKUMAR (KOLLAM). RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE, KOLLAM. 3. SUMATHIKUTTY, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, SUMA NIVAS, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM. 4. PUSHPA RAJAN, RAJ BHAVAN, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL, ADV. SRI.O.K.MURALEEDHARAN, ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.33780/2007-U: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD AND RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RATION CARD OF THE P.1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DTD. 27/10/2003. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE S.I., KAVANAD, KOLLAM. EXT.R3.C: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY R.3. BEFORE THE S.I. OF POLICE, KAVANAD DTD. 18/08/2007. //TRUE COPY// prv. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.33780 OF 2007-U -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioners are husband and wife. They have approached this Court alleging that the police is harassing them at the instance of the 3rd respondent, who is the mother of the 1st petitioner and also the 4th respondent, who is his maternal uncle. 2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that earlier there was a direction by this Court in a writ petition filed by the 3rd respondent that law and order should be maintained. Further, the 3rd respondent has filed complaints before the police pointing out harassment and physical torture from the part of the petitioners against her. In the above background, the 1st petitioner was summoned to the police station to enquire about that. The police is duty bound to enquire into the petition received against the petitioners. The action of the police in this regard cannot be described as harassment, it is submitted. WPC.33780/2007 . 2 3. Respondents 3 and 4 denied the allegations against them. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit and along with that, she has produced Exts.R3(a) to R3(c) complaints filed by her before the police officers. She submits that she is being physically tortured by the 1st petitioner to partition the family property. In view of the above facts, we dispose of the writ petition recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the police have no intention to harass the petitioners and that they are only enquiring into the complaints against the petitioners filed on behalf of their mother. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR , JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl WPC.33780/2007 . 3