IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 287 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3935/2010 Dated 09/02/2010 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- SUNDAR VENKITARAJ, AGED 39, S/O.RAJU, VAIKUNDAM, THIRUMULLAVARAM, KOLLAM - 12. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- JOSE, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, CJ. & K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 287 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner herein was the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.3935 of 2010. The said writ petition was filed by him alleging harassment at the hands of the respondents. According to him, the police is compelling him to pay some amount to his erstwhile workmen. Before this Court the 2nd respondent made a statement through the learned Government Pleader that he has no intention to harass the petitioner and he will not harass him. The said submission was recorded and the writ petition was disposed of. 2. The petitioner alleges that subsequently, respondents sent two Police Constables to him and he is being again harassed and threatened. Making these allegations, this Contempt application has been filed. 3. As per the direction of this Court the respondent has filed an affidavit in which it is stated that based on the complaint filed by the petitioner, a crime has been registered COC No.287 of 2010 -:2:- against certain persons and the investigating officer wants to question the petitioner. So a notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been served on him. But, the petitioner has not so far appeared before him. It is further submitted that the allegation regarding harassment is incorrect. 4. We heard learned counsel on both sides. 5. We think, in view of the affidavit filed by respondent, the Contempt Case can be closed. The petitioner may appear before the respondent for questioning in view of the notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with his counsel. We are issuing this direction because of the apprehension of the petitioner that he may be harassed by the police, if he appears in person. The Contempt Case is accordingly closed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. ttb COC No.287 of 2010 -:3:-