S.Rajasekharan vs Circle Inspector Of Police on 10 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16533 of 2009(J)


1. S.RAJASEKHARAN, AGED 46 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SMT.PUSHPALATHA, AGED 41 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. SMT.MAYA SUNIL, W/O.SUNIL KUMAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAVIKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.KRISHNAKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :10/08/2009

 O R D E R
                P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                      W.P.(C) NO. 16533 OF 2009
                       = = = = = = = = = = = = =
        DATED THIS, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009.

                            J U D G M E N T

Raman, J.

Petitioners are husband and wife. First petitioner is working in

the Cochin refinery. They have got two daughters. It is alleged that

the third respondent and her husband, who are residing opposite to the

house of the petitioners, are now on inimical terms and at their

instance, police is harassing them.

2. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the

allegations. According to her, a complaint was made herself and one

of her neighbour against the petitioners, which is produced as Exts.R3

(a) along with the counter affidavit. According to her, on receipt of the

said complaint, the second respondent enquired the matter, called the

petitioners to the police station and settled the dispute in the presence

of the third respondent and after that, petitioner filed Ext.P1 complaint

to the Sub Inspector of Police and after ascertaining, it was found that

the complaint is false and the Sub Inspector of Police, warned the

petitioners. According to the learned Government Pleader, when a

W.P.(C) 16533/2009 2

complaint is received, police is entitled to inquire into the same and

petitioners were only called to the police station in connection with

the complaint received from the third respondent and there is no

harassment on their part.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner, the learned counsel for the third respondent as also

the learned Government Pleader, we direct that in case the presence

of the petitioners is required in connection with any enquiry, they

may be issued with notice under Section 160 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

The writ petition is closed.

P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.

KNC/-