IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32054 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNNY @ KURIAKOSE S.V., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, SANKOORIKKAL HOUSE, THOMASPURAM, CHAMPAKKARA, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY MATHEW SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION BUILDINGS, ERNAKULAM-682 018. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-682 018. 5. RENEESH, S/O. V.H.M.RAFEEK, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MADURAI COMPANY ROAD, PALLURUTHY, EDAKOCHI VILLAGE-682 007. 6. JABBAR K.B., S/O. BAVA, 12/1606 A, KOOTTARATHIL HOUSE, PANAYAPILLY, KOCHI-682 005. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DTD.5.8.2008 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.32054 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner while considering this writ petition seeks direction against what is described as harassment of police. We direct the State Attorney to took notice on behalf of police officers and seek instructions. Today on behalf of the State Attorney Sri.Shyson P.Manguzha the learned Government Pleader submitted that accusations of police harassment are raised in this writ petition are untrue. The 2nd respondent got a complaint from the 5th respondent. The complaint was to the effect that the petitioner who had hired a car from the 5th respondent on 'rent a car' basis had not returned such car. The attendance of the petitioner was insisted only in connection with enquiry into that complaint. But the petitioner never appeared before the 2nd respondent for the enquiry. It is in connection with that enquiry that the 2nd respondent and officers under them are insisting upon the petitioner's appearance. Smt.R.Vijayakumari, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of W.P(C) No.32054 of 2011 2 the 5th respondent submitted that on not getting reliefs from the hands of the respondent, the 5th respondent has filed a private complaint before the local Magistrate against the petitioner. The only question which we are called upon to decide is whether the the action of the police officers in insisting on the appearance of the petitioner before them can be branded as police harassment. The above question can be answered only in the negative. We decline jurisdiction and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab