Renjith Kumar v. Sub Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2015/2ND MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 2278 of 2015 (H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
---------------------- RENJITH KUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.JANARDHANAN, KOOVAKATTIL HOUSE, PULLARDESOM ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI 6.
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE (PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARADU POLICE STATION, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM 682 304.
2. MANOJ KUMAR M.R.
VII/318, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARAKULAM P.O. KODUNGALLUR - 680 664.
R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 2278 of 2015 (H) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.1.2015 PASSED BY SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM IN CRL.M.C. NO. 58/15 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.
/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ
ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.2278 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January 2015
J U D G M E N T
Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
2.
By this writ petition, the petitioner alleging police harassment, has prayed for a direction to the 1st respondent not to harass him. It is his case that he had some financial transaction with the 2nd respondent and at the instance of the 2nd respondent, 1st respondent is calling the petitioner to appear before the police station.
3.
The learned Government Pleader, after obtaining instructions, would submit that a complaint was received by the Commissioner of Police against the 2nd respondent and the same has been forwarded to the 1st respondent for investigation. It is submitted that, it is in that connection
that the petitioner was called to appear before the police. But, instead of appearing before the police, the petitioner has filed an application for anticipatory bail. 3.
In the facts and circumstances of the case especially when the petitioner was called in connection with the complaint received by the Commissioner of Police, we do not find any element of police harassment in this case. It is open for the petitioner to appear before the police and co-operate with the investigation.
With these observations, this writ petition is closed. (sd/-) (ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr