IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9050 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- DILEEP KUMAR, BEENA MANDIRAM, THOTTAKKADU, KARAVARAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, KALLAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SRI.SYAM SANTH, S/O.SURENDRAN, V.S.SADANAM, PUDUSSERYMUKKU, NAVAIKKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P.N. SUKUMARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 9050 OF 2010 E --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd March, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the second respondent not to harass the petitioner in any manner whatsoever including summoning him to his office in connection with the investigation of Crime No.101/2010 of Kallambalam Police Station. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the second respondent not to compel the petitioner to admit the ownership and possession of pick up autorickshaw bearing Reg. No.KL 16 8149.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: A pick up autorickshaw met with an accident and one WPC.9050/2010 E 2 person died. It is stated that the third respondent is the registered owner. Second respondent, Sub Inspector of Police is compelling the petitioner and his wife to admit possession of the above vehicle alleging that the petitioner has purchased the above vehicle from the third respondent. Petitioner sent Ext.P1 notice, to which Ext.P2 reply notice was given by the second respondent. Ext.P3 is alleged to be the sale agreement produced by the second respondent and it is alleged to be a forged document. Petitioner submitted Ext.p5 petition before the first respondent, Director General of Police. But, there is no action. 3. Learned Government Pleader would submit that it is true that a person died in an accident. He would further submit that a Crime has been registered and notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued and police want to ascertain the truth of the matter. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: Investigation can be continued in accordance with law to the Crime. However, we make it clear that the petitioner cannot WPC.9050/2010 E 3 be compelled to admit Ext.P3 Agreement or that he is the actual owner of the autorickshaw in question. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge