High Court Kerala High Court

Sreejith vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 4 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sreejith vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 4 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16772 of 2010(V)


1. SREEJITH, S/O.SREENIVASAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RAJESH, S/O.RAJAN, AGED 25,
3. SHYJU, S/O.RAMAGOPALAN, AGED 25,
4. BAIJU, S/O.BALAN, AGED 23,

                        Vs



1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. THE DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

5. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

6. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

7. SHRI.OUSEPPACHAN AMBOOKKAN,

8. SHRI.JOJO.C.T, S/O.THOMAS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.R.DHANIL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :04/06/2010

 O R D E R
                          K. M. JOSEPH &
                  M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                 W.P.(C).No. 16772 of 2010 V
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010

                             JUDGMENT

Joseph, J.

The complaint of the petitioners is that they were being

harassed by respondents 1 to 6.

2. Briefly the case of the petitioners is as follows. The

petitioners are friends. On 2.3.2010, while they were standing

in front of the AKM High School, Poyya, 8th respondent, who is

a peon in the said school, came near them consuming liquor and

he picked up a quarrel with the petitioners. There was exchange

of words. After that another peon came there and abused the

petitioners. Exts.P1 and P2 are the identity cards issued to the

petitioners. Exts.P3 ans P4 are orders passed by the Sessions

Judge dismissing the bail applications on the basis of the

W.P.(C).No. 16772 of 2010

2

information given by the police that the petitioners are not involved in

any crime. Even thereafter there was harassment.

3. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader.

4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that

the first accused is yet to be arrested as he is absconding. He submits

that the respondents will not harass the petitioners. If the presence of

the petitioners is required, notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. shall be

issued.

5. We record the said submission and close this Writ Petition.

(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm