IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4716 of 2010(L) --------- ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JOLY, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.E.M.PAUL, EDATHURUTHIL VEEDU, SOUTH GIRINAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COCHIN-682 020. BY ADV. SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUNNAR. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADIMALY POLICE STATION, ADIMALY. 3. PRADEEP, S/O.SUBRAHMANIAN, KOTTARATHIL VEEDU, THATTATHIMUKKU, CHITHIRAPURAM, ANCHAL, ADIMALY,. 4. PREMKUMAR, S/O,.SUBRAHMANIAN, KOTTARATHIL VEEDU, THATTATHIMUKKU, CHITHIRAPUYRAM, ANCHAL, ADIMALY. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 4716 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2, not to harass the petitioner unnecessarily in connection with any complaint filed by respondents 3 and 4, except according to the procedure established by law. The brief case of the petitioner is as follows. 2. Respondents 3 and 4 are petitioner's brothers-in-law. Respondents 3 and 4 have no particular job and on philanthropic considerations, the petitioner included them also in his business. They have started demanding money. Petitioner used to entrust business to respondents 3 and 4, when he was away. But they capitalised the situation causing huge loss to the petitioner. It is stated that, on 25.01.10, respondents 3 and 4 along with some goondas entered into the Studio of the petitioner and caused damages and threatened the petitioner. Petitioner filed Ext.P1 complaint. The wife of respondent No.3 is stated to be a police officer and respondents 3 and 4 have prevailed upon her and WP(C) No. 4716 of 2010 -:2:- now respondents 1 and 2 are harassing the petitioner unnecessarily. 3. Learned Government Pleader got instructions. He would submit that a complaint has been received from the wife of the petitioner and a crime has been registered as Crime No.97 of 2010 under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code. 4. The Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: There will not be any harassment by respondents 1 and 2 at the instance of respondents 3 and 4. There is no crime registered against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint filed by respondents 3 and 4. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be harassed at their instance. But, it is made abundantly clear that this judgment should not be understood as meaning that in regard to the crime registered under Section 498 A, respondents 1 and 2 are not free to investigate the case in accordance with law. K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE ttb