IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21831 of 2011(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SOMARAJAN, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT MATHIL,PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH, SMT.HEMALATHA, SRI.V.R.REKESH. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOSDURG POLICE STATION,KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPIN DAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.21831/2011-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: NIL. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21831 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. This writ petition is filed raising complaint to the effect that the respondent herein is causing, what is termed as 'harassment' to the petitioner. It is conceded that the petitioner is accused in Crime No.323 of 2009 registered by Bekal Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 of IPC. The motor accident in question happened when a KSRTC Bus driven by the petitioner collided with a Maruti Car at the National Highway from Kanhangad to Kasaragod, on 13.9.2009 in which death of two persons occurred. It is also conceded that final report in the case has already been filed before the JFCM-II, Hosdurg and the case has already been committed for trial to the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Adhoc-II, Kasaragod and it is pending trial as S.C.No.622 of 2010. 2 W.P.(C) No.21831 of 2011 2. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner's driving licence was suspended for a period of six months, which period had already been expired. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondents alongwith police party had came to his house at a time when he was not available and conducted search without serving any notice in terms of Section 91 Cr.P.C. It is stated that the search was conducted for getting the driving licence of the petitioner. It is alleged that the visit of the respondents and the police party continued thereafter on 8.8.2011 also. According to the petitioner, the respondents have no manner of right to conduct such an illegal search or to make a demand for custody of the driving licence, after completion of the investigation of the case and after submitting the final report. Since it is alleged that the respondent is taking illegal action in this regard, this writ petition is filed. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, on the basis of instructions received, submitted that the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Kasaragod, 3 W.P.(C) No.21831 of 2011 wherein the trial of the case is pending, had issued directions to the respondent, who is the Investigating Officer, to produce the licence of the petitioner. It is only in that premise, the respondent had gone to the house of the petitioner for taking into custody of the driving licence. Eventhough the family members of the petitioner had promised that the driving licence will be produced before the respondent, the petitioner has not produced the same till date. Inspite of repeated attempts made by the respondent, the petitioner could not be contacted, is the submission. 4. Considering the fact that the respondent had demanded production of driving licence, only on the basis of the directions issued by the Addl. Sessions court, wherein the trial of the case is pending, we do not find that there is any harassment on the part of the respondent either to the petitioner or to his family members. It is further submitted by learned Government Pleader that the petitioner was represented before that court through a lawyer and he was 4 W.P.(C) No.21831 of 2011 having knowledge about the directions of the court. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to produce the driving licence before the trial court. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we make it clear that, it will be left open to the petitioner to produce the driving licence before the trial court. Needless to say that the petitioner will be at liberty to seek release of the licence if produced, in accordance with the provisions of law and we do not see any valid reasons to presume that such request will not be considered by the Additional Sessions court. 6. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we do not find any warrant for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed . PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/