IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31191 of 2011(Y) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- UMMER K.H., S/O. HAMEED, KURIKKAPEDIKA HOUSE, THEKKE ANGADI, PUTHEN PEEDIKA, ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERPU, THRISSUR-680 561. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR-680 641. 4. JOMY, S/O. JOY, CHIRAMMAL PULLUKKARAN, PUTHENPEEDIKA, ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR-680 641. R1TOR3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.31191/2011 Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE RENT DEED DTD.17.1.2011. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.25.7.11 IN CRL.M.C.959/11. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.1.8.11 IN CRL.MC NO.959/11. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DTD.11.11.2011. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD.21.11.2011 WITH RECEIPT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.31191 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J Considering the writ petition for admission, we directed Sri.Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran, the learned Government Pleader to take notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 to seek from the 3rd respondent as to the correctness of the accusations of the police harassment. Today Sri.Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran submitted that the accusations of police harassment are without any basis. 2. According to him the 4th respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Inspector General of Police and he filed similar complaint before the 3rd respondent also. The petitioner's attendance was insisted upon only for the purpose of enquiry into the complaints received against him. The enquiry revealed that there is no necessity to register any crime against the petitioner. Hence at the moment the police does not require the attendance of the petitioner. Mr.I.Dinesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted W.P(C) No.31191 of 2011 2 that the 3rd respondent compelled the petitioner to vacate the building where the petitioner is a building tenant. Mr.Majooran submitted that the above allegation is not correct. Under the above circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition recording all the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. We direct respondents 1 to 3 not to intervene in any dispute pertaining to the continuance of the petitioner's tenancy over the building in question. We further direct them to issue notice to the petitioner under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if they require attendance of the petitioner in connection with any enquiry or investigation. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab