IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26413 of 2009(V)
1. RAJESH K.R., S/O.RAVI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. MR.BABY, NOW WORKING AS SUB INSPECTOR
5. THOMAS MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW,
6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.G.HARIHARAN
For Respondent :M/S.VARGHESE & JACOB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :09/03/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 26413 of 2009 V
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks the following
reliefs.
“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ commanding the 1st respondent
to conduct a detailed enquiry about the illegal
activities of the 4th and 5th respondents with
reference to Ext.P1 and also evidenced by
various activities revealed by Exts.P2 and P3
news items without any further delay;
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ commanding the 4th respondent
not to harass the petitioner and his family
members.”
W.P.(C).No. 26413 of 2009
2
2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is
a resident of Mala in Trichur district. He decided to construct a
building in his land. He started filling the land for construction of the
house. The 4th respondent, who was working as the Sub Inspector of
Police at Mala at that time, directed the petitioner to stop filling up of
the site. It is stated that the 5th respondent, who is having illegal
association with the 4th respondent, has received Rs.10,000/- from the
petitioner. Apart from that, the 5th respondent has borrowed
Rs.75,000/- from the petitioner. It is stated that when he insisted for
repayment of the amount, the 5th respondent had instigated the 4th
respondent to harass the petitioner and his family members. The
petitioner’s wife was also harassed by the respondents. Petitioner filed
Ext.P1 complaint before the first respondent.
3. Counter affidavit and statement have been filed.
4. The learned Government Pleader would submit that at present
there is no harassment. It is true that the petitioner had filed Ext.P1, in
which the prayer sought for is a detailed enquiry by the D.G.P.
W.P.(C).No. 26413 of 2009
3
We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that at
present there is no harassment to the petitioner. In regard to the
complaints against respondents 4 and 5, we relegate the petitioner to
pursue his remedy before the police complaint authorities. We make
it clear that the petitioner can approach any forum for redressal of his
grievances.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm