Abdul Malik v. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2015/30TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 25853 of 2015 (F) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS :

------------------

1. ABDUL MALIK AGED 46 YEARS S/O. SHAMSUDEEN, CHAMMINIYIL HOUSE, KAIPPAMANGALAM, CHALINGAD, THRISSUR - 680681.

2. REZEENA, W/O. ABDUL MALIK, AGED 39 YEARS, CHAMMINIYIL HOUSE, KAIPPAMANGALAM, CHALINGAD, THRISSUR - 680681.

BY ADVS.SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN (ELOOR) SRI.JOLLY GEORGE SRI.T.S.PRASANNAKUMAR SRI.K.V.PREMSANKAR SMT.RESHMA ABDUL RASHEED RESPONDENTS :

----------------------

1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR - 680121.

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM, THRISSUR - 680685.

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR - 680664.

4. NOBY AUGUSTINE, D/O. AUGUSTINE, AGED 32 YEARS, THIRUTHANATHIL HOUSE, MARYGIRI KARA, MANJAPARA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM - 683581.

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. G.P. C.R. SYAMKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

bp

WP(C).No. 25853 of 2015 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

P1:

COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF BAIL APPLICATION DT 30/9/2014. P2:

COPY OF THE ORDER IN BA NO. 7223/2014 DT 5/6/2015. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :

NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.25853 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August 2015

J U D G M E N T

Shaffique, J Petitioners have approached this Court alleging harassment by the police. It is stated that 1st petitioner and 4th respondent were having some business transaction and on the guise that some amount is payable by the 2nd petitioner to the 4th respondent, 3rd respondent is unnecessarily summoning the petitioners. This, according to the petitioners, amounts to harassment, as petitioners are not involved in any financial transaction. 2nd petitioner does not owe any amount to the 4th respondent. If at all if there is any such claim, it is only a dispute of civil nature for which the police has no right to interfere. 2nd petitioner had approached this Court for anticipatory bail in which police had made a statement that no case has been registered against the 2nd petitioner.

2.

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that a complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent

before the Deputy Superintendent of Police which was forwarded for investigation and the 2nd petitioner was asked to be present before the police for enquiry on 18/08/2015. On that day, police was busy on account of other reasons and the 2nd petitioner was asked to come on another date of her choice. However, she did not appear. The purpose of summoning the 2nd petitioner was only to conduct a preliminary enquiry in the matter and therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, police has not meted out any harassment, as alleged.

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, we do not think that asking the petitioners to come to the police station for a preliminary enquiry would amount to any harassment. Police shall act only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

With the above observation, this writ petition is closed. (sd/-) (ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE) (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr