IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19124 of 2008(B)
1. SOBHANAKUMARI, AGED 56 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, COCHIN CITY.
3. AMALOO, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.PREMKUMAR,
For Petitioner :SMT.LALY VINCENT
For Respondent :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :18/07/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 19124 OF 2008-B
-----------------------------------------
Dated 18th July, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the third respondent. There
was difference of opinion between them. Therefore, the 3rd respondent
along with her husband, who is the son of the petitioner, started residing
separately. From there the petitioner’s son, without informing her or the 3rd
respondent, went abroad. Later, the 3rd respondent filed a petition before the
1st respondent. The said respondent summoned the petitioner. When she
appeared before the said respondent, she was directed to produce her son or
else, she was threatened that she will be made an accused in several crimes.
The petitioner submits, she is not aware of the whereabouts of her son and
therefore, she is not in a position to produce him before the 1st respondent.
Feeling aggrieved by the attitude of the 1st respondent and the harassment
meted out to her, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 representation before
the Commissioner of Police. Thereafter, this writ petition is filed, seeking
appropriate reliefs against the harassment from the part of the 1st respondent.
2. The 1st respondent has filed a statement, stating that she has no
WPC 19124/08 2
intention,whatsoever, to harass the petitioner. She only called the petitioner
to the Police Station to enquire into the complaint made by the 3rd
respondent.
3. The 3rd respondent submitted that Ext.R3(a) is the petition filed by
her before the 1st respondent. The same discloses some cognizable offences
also and therefore, the police are bound to investigate the same, it is
submitted. In answer, the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent has no
jurisdiction to register any crime against her or investigate the same.
4. We record the submission of the 1st respondent that the said
respondent has no intention to harass the petitioner. If the presence of the
petitioner is required in connection with any enquiry, she shall be served
with notice under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. In that event the petitioner
shall co-operative with the police, by making available for interrogation
before the competent police officer.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
Nm/