Rajesh 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 TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/5TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 5900 of 2015 (J) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :- ------------------ RAJESH, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.SUKUMARAN, KOODATHINKAL HOUSE, PALLISSERY ARATTUPUZHA P.O., ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S) :- ------------------

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 686001.

2. LALITHA W/O.LATE MADHAVAN, NANKULANGARA HOUSE KIZHAKKUMURI DESOM, KANDANGODU VILLAGE THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 686 301.

3. GIRIJAMANI W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, KOPPATTIL HOUSE, PALAZHI DESOM NENMANIKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDHAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT - 686 101.

4. DIVYA D/O.CHANDRAN, PALLISERY DESOM, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 686 301.

R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-022015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt

WP(C).No. 5900 of 2015 (J) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :- ----------------------------- EXT.P1:A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT PAID BY RESPONDENTS 3 & 4. EXT.P2:A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT P1. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :- NIL ------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag. C.J & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

---------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5900 of 2015 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February 2015

J U D G M E N T

Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

2.

By this writ petition, the petitioner alleging police harassment, seeks a direction to the first respondent not to harass the petitioner by pressurizing him to require the 3rd and 4th respondent to transfer the property purchased by them in favour of the 2nd respondent.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent contacted the petitioner over phone and asked him to come to the station, which amounts to harassment since the petitioner has absolutely no connection with the dispute, which is in the nature of a civil dispute.

4.

Learned Government Pleader after obtaining instructions would submit that on a complaint received against the petitioner, the petitioner was called at the station, on which, he replied that he could not attend the station since the dispute is

W.P.(C) No.5900 of 2015 -: 2 :- only in the nature of a civil dispute. From the above incident, we do not find a case of any police harassment. Merely because the petitioner was called by a police inspector and asked him to come to the station in connection with a complaint received against him does not amount to any kind of police harassment. We, thus, are not inclined to entertain the writ petition as a police harassment matter.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE J UDGE Jvt