IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33598 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. GIRLY VARGHESE, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. VARGHESE, KURISINGAL HOUSE, NJARAKKAL P.O., VYPIN. 2. JAMES VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE, AGED 36 YEARS, KURISINGAL HOUSE, NJARAKKAL P.O., VYPIN. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RURAL, ALUVA-683 101. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NJARAKKAL, PIN-682 505. 3. MRS.PRAKASHINI BABU, W/O. BABU, PADAMATHARA HOUSE, RAKTHESWARI TEMPLE ROAD, CHERAI, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 516. BY G.P.SRI. SUSHEEL CYRIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.13.12.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE CL PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C).NO.33598 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. On considering this writ petition containing accusations of harassment by the police, we directed Sri. Susheel Cyriac, learned Government Pleader who took notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 to seek instructions from the 2nd respondent. Today on the basis of the instructions so received, Sri. Susheel Cyriac submitted that accusations of harassment levelled against the police officers are without basis. The third respondent has filed a complaint against the 2nd petitioner. The complaint was to the effect that a sum of Rs.51,000/- was due to the complainant/third respondent from the second petitioner and that in spite of demands the amount was not being paid and the 2nd petitioner misbehaved with the 3rd respondent, who is a lady. It was only as part of enquiry into the above complaint that attendance of the petitioners was required. This cannot be branded as harassment. We enquired of Sri. Susheel Cyriac whether attendance of the petitioners is any longer required by the W.P.(C).NO.33598 OF 2011 : 2 : police and also whether any crime has been registered against the petitioners. The learned Government Pleader answered in the negative. The only question that we are called upon to decide is whether the action of the police in insisting on the attendance of the petitioners can be branded as harassment. The question has to be answered in the negative. We decline the relief sought for. However, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent that in case he requires attendance of the petitioners in connection with any enquiry or investigation, notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C will be sent to him in writing. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl