← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/39010/2015dismissed

Mujeeb Rahman v. State Of Kerala

2015-12-22Honourable Mr.Justice A.M.Shaffique,Honourable The Chief Justice Mr.Ashok Bhushan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/1ST POUSHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 39010 of 2015 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

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

1. MUJEEB RAHMAN, AGED 40 YEARS S/O K.M HAJI, FAZILA COTTAGE, P.P.M.P.O., PUNALUR VILLAGE PUNALUR TALUK.

2. SHADA BEEVI, AGED 54, D/O JAILATHUMBA, FAZILA COTTAGE, P.P.M.P.O., PUNALUR VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK.

BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G RESPONDENTS:

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

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM RURAL, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM RURAL, KOTTARAKKARA 691 506.

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691305.

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691305.

4. VINOD V, AGED 40, S/O MURALEEDHARAN, HI-TECH WORKSHOP, KARAVALUR, KARAVALUR VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK.

R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.R SYAMKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 39010 of 2015 (A) APPENDIX:

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 543/2015 PENDING BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR.

EXT.P2:

TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

NIL.

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE.

kp/-

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

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C). No. 39010 of 2015 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2015

JUDGMENT

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners alleging harassment by the police. It is stated that they are unnecessarily being summoned at the instance of the fourth respondent.

2. Learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the fourth respondent, the parties were summoned for the purpose of enquiry. The complaint had been closed on 20.10.2015. Thereafter, petitioners were not asked to appear before the police.

3. The above submission is recorded. We are of the opinion that summoning of the petitioners for enquiry on a complaint does not amounts to police harassment.

Hence the writ petition is dismissed.

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE kp/-22.12.15