IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4716 of 2010(L)
1. JOLY, AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. PRADEEP, S/O.SUBRAHMANIAN,
4. PREMKUMAR, S/O,.SUBRAHMANIAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :17/02/2010
O R D E R
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