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 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25802 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PRIYA SATHYAN, AGED 31, W/O.SHYJU, ELAVUNKAL HOUSE, ELANGULAM KARA, ELANGULAM VILLAGE, NARIYANI.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION-PONKUNNAM, PONKUNNAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 506. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE- KANJIRAPPALLY, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN- 686 507. 3. TOM .J.POOVATHUMMOOTTIL, S/O.P.S.JOB, POOVATHUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, KOOTHRAPPALLY.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 001. 4. ANILKUMAR.E.R., S/O.RAGHAVAN, EATTACKAL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 506. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS, R3 BY ADV. SRI K.P SREEKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.25802/2011-A: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 3414/2011 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, KANJIRAPPALLY. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE STTUS QUO ORDER DTD. 23/08/2011 PASSED AGAINST THE R.4. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 25802 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Petitioner, a lady has approached this court alleging that at the instance of the 3rd respondent the police is harassing her. According to her, she is the absolute owner of the property by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed. On noticing that Sri.K.P.Sreekumar was appearing for the 3rd respondent in previous proceedings before the DRT in respect of the property in question we directed the registry to show the name of Sri.K.P. Sreekumar also in the cause list. Today we have also heard Sri.K.P.Sreekumar, counsel for the 3rd respondent as well as the Government Pleader. 2. The only question which arises for consideration in this case is the correctness of the accusation of harassment by the police. Government Pleader submitted that on the basis of a complaint submitted by the 3rd respondent the police registered crime No.567/11 under section 188 IPC. Accused in this crime is the 4th respondent. Petitioner apprehends that police is likely to WP(C).25802/2011 2 array her also as an accused. It is in anticipation of the petitioner also being arrayed as an accused, that she is alleging police harassment. At the moment the police does not require the attendance of the petitioner. But investigation is progressing in crime No.567/2011. If it is revealed in the investigation that the petitioner is to be arrayed as accused, she may have to be interrogated. 3. Sri.K.P.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the 3rd respondent has a valid decree for specific performance in respect of the very same property. That decree can always be put to execution by the 3rd respondent and once that is done Ext.P1 sale deed cannot be relied on. Any direction which may pass in this writ petition is likely to cause prejudice to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent's interest in the property. According to us, interest of justice will be served if we dispose of the writ petition by issuing the following directions. 4. The 1st respondent who is investigating into the crime No.567/11 is directed to issue notice to the petitioner under section 160 of the Cr.P.C. if he feels that the attendance of the WP(C).25802/2011 3 petitioner is required for the purpose of interrogation or any other purpose. If during interrogation or any further stage of investigation it becomes necessary to the 1st respondent to arrest the petitioner, the 1st respondent shall comply with the provisions of section 41A to D of the Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court from time to time regarding arrest particularly arrest of the women. We make it clear that this judgment is not intended to make any prejudice to the interest claimed by the 3rd respondent over the property in question. We also clarify that we have not pronounced anything on the rival claims of the parties. We inform the 1st respondent that he is not entitled to interfere in the civil disputes in respect of the property. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).25802/2011 4