Kerala High Court
Ajayan vs The Station House Officer on 12 March, 2012
Author: K.T.Sankaran
Bench: K.T.Sankaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/13TH ASWINA, 1938
WP(C).No. 26682 of 2016 (I)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------------
AJAYAN
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. SASI, HOUSE NO. 4 A16,
WARD NO.28, CHAMANTHARA KIZHAKKATHIL,
KRISHNAPURAM P.O., KAYAMKULAM, KARTHIKAPPALLI TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.BINU GEORGE
SMT.HEMALATHA
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690502.
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688001.
3. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688001.
4. SUJA @ SWAPNA SUKUMARAN
AGED 28 YEARS, D/O. SUKUMARAN, CHAMANTHARA
KIZHAKKATHIL, KRISHNAPURAM P.O., KAYAMKULAM,
KARTHIKAPALLI THALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690502.
WP(C).No. 26682 of 2016
-2-
5. SUJITH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. SUKUMARAN, CHAMANTHARA
KIZHAKKATHIL, KRISHNAPURAM P.O., KAYAMKULAM,
KARTHIKAPALLI THALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690502.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-
10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 26682 of 2016 (I)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12-3-2012 IN OP (HMA)
494/2011 ON THE FILED OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEFORE D.G.P. DATED 11-7-2016.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEFORE DY. S.P., KAYAMKULAM
DATED 11-7-2016.
//True copy//
P.S to Judge
K.T.SANKARAN & A.M.BABU, JJ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).26682 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated 5th October, 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Sankaran, J Notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with.
1.The petitioner married the 4th respondent. Due to difference of opinion, they could not continue the marital relationship. By filing a joint petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the marriage was dissolved as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 12.3.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner went to Muscat. He returned to India in 2015. The 4th respondent approached the petitioner and demanded to re-marry her. The petitioner was not willing. The 4th respondent approached the police and the police insisted the petitioner to re-marry her. The petitioner is complaining about the police harassment in this writ petition.
WP(C).26682/16 2
2.The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that on 9.1.2016, the petitioner met with an accident at Ochira, and suffered fracture on leg. When he was hospitalized, he sought the help of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent went to the hospital and attended to the petitioner. After discharge from the hospital, they lived together at the house of the petitioner till 5.7.2016. It is stated that the petitioner promised to re- marry the 4th respondent. But after recovery from illness, he started harassing the 4th respondent physically and mentally. On 8.6.2015, the 4th respondent lodged a petition before the Sub Inspector of police, Kayamkulam, complaining harassment at the instance of the petitioner. On 12.8.2016, the 4th respondent complained to the police that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the 4th respondent without her consent. Accordingly, crime No.2224 of 2016 was WP(C).26682/16 3 registered against the petitioner under Section 376(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4th respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner before the police only after filing the Original Petition on 10.08.2016 and therefore, it is clear that the allegations are false.
4.Whether the allegations made by the 4th respondent are correct or not, cannot be decided in this writ petition. If a crime is registered against the petitioner, the police is bound to investigate. That cannot be termed as harassment.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
K.T.SANKARAN Judge Sd/-
A.M.BABU Judge Mrcs/6.10.2016 //True copy// P.S to Judge