IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16450 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- POULOSE.P.A., S/O. ANTONY, RESIDING AT PANAKAL HOUSE, PACHALAM AMSOM, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682012. BY ADVS. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN SMT.BHAMA G. NAIR SRI.V.K.MEETHIANKUNJU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANHANGAD, KASARGODE DISTRICT-671315. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOSDURG POLICE STATION,BALLA VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671531. 3. P.C. MARY @ PANDAREPARAMBIL CHAVARO MARY W/O. P.A. VARGHESE, PANAKKAL HOUSE, KOYAKUNDU, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O. BALLA, PIN-671531. 4. MUNDAKKAL FED MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW JOHN, MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, PATHAYAPURAYIL, KANHANGAD SOUTH, KANHANGAD VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD. PIN-671531. 5. MERCY JOSEPH, W/O. MUNDAKKAL FED MATHEW, MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, PATHAYAPURAYIL KANHANGAD SOUTH, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671531. 6. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. R1 , R2 R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.16450/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, BALLA DT. 2.11.2010. P2:- COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS. 39/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDURG DTD. 15.1.2011. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT.D 24.2.2011 IN BA. 1254/2011. P4:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FIELD BY THE PETITIONER IN CMP. 2132/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I HOSDURG. P5:- COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.375/2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION. P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10.6.2011 SEND BY THE PETITIONER BY REG. POST TO THE TALUK LEGAL SERVICE AUTORITY , KASARGOD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss R. BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16450 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011 Judgment Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this court complaining of harassment by the police. He prays that directions may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution by this court to put an end to such harassment and vexation meted out to him. 2. According to the petitioner, his brother had 50 cents of property in Kasargod. The petitioner resides at Ernakulam. The petitioner had allegedly purchased 20 cents out of the said 50 cents by two documents executed by his brother in his favour in 1998 and 2000. His brother expired in 2004. According to the petitioner, the petitioner continued to retain possession of 20 cents of land assigned in his name by his brother. Remaining 30 cents of his property continued to remain with his brother and on his death his legal heirs (including the third respondent, his wife) have inherited that property. 3. According to the petitioner, the third respondent has executed a document assigning her rights over the entire 50 WPC 16450/11 2 cents including the 20 cents covered by this two assignments in the name of the petitioner. She has for herself and her children executed such document/assignment in favour of respondents 4 and 5. Respondent No.4 appears to have filed a complaint before the police raising allegations against respondent No.3. The petitioner on coming to know of the illegal transaction between respondents 3 on the one hand and 4 and 5 on the other has also lodged a complaint before the police. Though those crimes are pending investigation, the petitioner is being called to the police station and is being vexed unnecessarily by the investigating officers. According to him, two blank signed papers have been obtained from the petitioner by the police. According to the petitioner, he is not an accused in any of the crimes registered by the police. He is being vexed by the police with demand to settle the issue by receiving paltry amounts from respondents 3 to 5. In short, his complaint is that police and respondents 3 to 5 are unnecessarily compelling the petitioner to surrender his civil rights. The petitioner is not prepared to do the same. Appropriate directions may be issued, it is prayed. WPC 16450/11 3 4. Notice was ordered to the respondents. Service is not complete yet. Respondents 3 to 5 have not been served. 5. The learned Government Pleader has entered appearance for respondents 1, 2 and 6. The learned Government Pleader confirms that the petitioner is only a witness in the crimes registered and no crime has been registered against the petitioner. The two crimes registered are consolidated and investigation is in progress. The petitioner will not be vexed or harassed at all. According to the learned Government Pleader, if the presence of the petitioner is required in connection with the crimes registered, he shall be issued proper notice in accordance with law before insisting of his presence. There shall be no attempt on the part of the investigating officers to compel the petitioner to yield to any terms and surrender his rights. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 6 undertakes that if the presence of the petitioner is required in connection with the crime registered, he shall be issued notice in accordance with law. There shall be no harassment or vexation of the petitioner. The petitioner who figures only as a witness in the WPC 16450/11 4 crime registered must co-operate with the police for the proper investigation. No specific directions under Article 226 are necessary, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. We have considered the submissions and the undertaking made by the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. We are of the opinion that no specific directions are necessary. We are persuaded to accept the submissions/undertakings made by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. We find it unnecessary in these circumstances to wait for fresh issue and return of notice to respondents 3 to 5. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then prays that there may be a direction to the police to ensure that the investigation is conducted by a high ranking police official other than the present investigating officer. Considering the nature and quality of the jurisdiction that we are called upon to invoke and exercise, we are not persuaded to invoke such jurisdiction to issue any directions regarding the personnel to conduct the investigation. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the quality of the investigation, he can certainly approach the learned Magistrate concerned in view WPC 16450/11 5 of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008(1) KLT 724(SC) ). 8. This petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. R.BASANT, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd