Kerala High Court
Ramankutty P.K vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 27 July, 2016
Author: K.T.Sankaran
Bench: K.T.Sankaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAYOF NOVEMBER 2016/23RD KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 35216 of 2016 (B)
PETITIONER:
RAMANKUTTY P.K.
AGED 52 YEARS, S/O LATE KUNJAN PILLAI,
EDAKKATTUVAYAL P.O., PIRAVOM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.NOBLE MATHEW
SRI.JOLLY GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION-682 314.
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PIRAVOM-686 664.
3. DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA-683 101.
5. STATEOF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME AFFAIRS,
GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
6. NAVEEN KUMAR P.T.,
PUTHUKULANGARA (H), EDAKKATTUVAYAL P.O.- 682 313,
MOB: 944635400.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 35216 of 2016 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.6
AGAINST THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SNDP YOGAM DATED
27/7/2016.
EXT.P2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 1/9/2016 GIVEN BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE SNDP YOGAM.
EXT.P3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S
WIFE BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
AHZ/
K.T.SANKARAN & A.M.BABU, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.35216 of 2016(B)
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
K.T.Sankaran, J.
The petitioner was assisting the sixth respondent in the business of chicken for the last about nine years. It is stated that now the petitioner is doing business of his own along with his son. According to the petitioner, the business now run by the petitioner's son is flourishing and the sixth respondent has jealousy towards the petitioner and his son. The sixth respondent filed Ext.P1 petition before the SNDP Sakha making allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply. According to the sixth respondent, more than Rupees nine lakhs is due from the petitioner to the sixth respondent. According to the petitioner, this is a falsehood.
2. The petitioner's wife filed Ext.P3 petition before the police stating that on 8.10.2016 she received two calls in the mobile phones of her husband and after assuring that the phones were W.P.(C) No.35216 of 2016(B) :: 2 ::
belonging to the petitioner, obscene words were showered on the petitioner's wife. It is also stated that similar incident continued on the next day also. The request in Ext.P3 petition submitted to the first respondent is to find out the person who called the petitioner and to take appropriate action against that person.
3. It is alleged in the Writ Petition that a Police Constable from the office of the third respondent constantly visited the petitioner's house. The petitioner was directed to appear before the third respondent on 31.10.2016. Since the petitioner could not attend the police station, respondents 1 and 2 are constantly threatening the petitioner that he will be implicated in criminal cases.
4. The relief prayed for in the Writ Petition is to issue a direction to respondents 1 to 3 not to harass the petitioner at the instance of the sixth respondent and also for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the sixth respondent after investigating into the allegations raised in Ext.P3.
5. The learned Government Pleader submitted, on W.P.(C) No.35216 of 2016(B) :: 3 ::
instructions, that the sixth respondent filed a petition on 17.10.2016 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police (third respondent) making allegations against the petitioner and it was registered in the Petition Register. The allegation was that the sixth respondent entrusted the petitioner to collect cash from the retail dealers and on verification of the accounts, it was found that the petitioner had misappropriated lakhs of Rupees. After receiving the petition from the sixth respondent, the Deputy Superintendent of Police contacted the petitioner through phone to ascertain the facts. But the petitioner did not report before the third respondent. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the police have no intention to harass the petitioner and they were only enquiring into the complaint filed by the sixth respondent. It is the further submission of the learned Government Pleader that if the presence of the petitioner before the police station is required, a notice will be issued to him under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute involved is of a civil nature and therefore the police have no authority to interfere in such civil dispute is W.P.(C) No.35216 of 2016(B) :: 4 ::
premature for consideration at this stage. The police have not registered any crime. If a crime is registered, the matter requires investigation. Investigation of a crime cannot be characterised as harassment.
In the facts and circumstances, we dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to respondents 1 to 3 that in case the presence of the petitioner is required before any of these respondents, a notice shall be issued to him under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We also record the undertaking made by respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioner will not be harassed under the guise of any investigation of the case.
K. T. Sankaran Judge A.M. Babu Judge ahz/