Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Girishkumar @ Kannan vs State Police Chief on 23 May, 2014

Author: Manjula Chellur

Bench: Manjula Chellur, P.V.Asha

       

  

  

 
 
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                             PRESENT:

                  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
                                                    &
                            THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

                    FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2014/2ND JYAISHTA, 1936

                                    WP(C).No. 12975 of 2014 (V)
                                       ----------------------------
PETITIONERS :
------------------------

        1. GIRISHKUMAR @ KANNAN,
            S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 36 YEARS,
            KOTTILAPARAMBIL HOUSE
            THIRUMITTAKODE P.O., KOOTTANADU VIA
            PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

        2. RAJESHKUMAR,
            S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 36 YEARS
            KOTTILAPRAMBIL HOUSE
            THIRUMITTAKODE P.O., KOOTTANADU VIA
            PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

        3. RATHEESHKUMAR,
            S/O. RAMANCHANDRAN, AGED 36 YEARS,
            KOTTILAPARAMBIL HOUSE
            THIRUMITTAKODE P.O., KOOTTANADU VIA
            PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

            BY ADVS.SRI.A.J.VARGHESE
                          SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN

RESPONDENTS :
---------------------------

        1. STATE POLICE CHIEF
            POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

        2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
            CHALLISSERY POLICE STATION, CHALISSERY, PATTAMBI
            PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303.

        3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLA - 689 101.

        4. SMITHA NAIR,
            W/O. MANU P. NAIR, OORAYIL HOUSE, OATHARA
            VALLAMKULAM, THIRUVALLA - 689 101.

        5. MANU P. NAIR
            OORAYIL HOUSE, OATHARA, VALLAMKULAM
            THIRUVALLA - 689 101.

            R1 TO R3 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SUJITH MATHEW JOSE

            THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
            ON 23-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
            FOLLOWING:
Mn
                                                                           ...2/-

WP(C).No. 12975 of 2014 (V)
----------------------------------------

                                                      APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
-------------------------------------

EXHIBIT P1 : NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 160 OF
                     THE CR. P.C TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :                            NIL
-----------------------------------------------------------

                                                                  //TRUE COPY//




                                                                   P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn



                    MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J.
                                 &
                          P.V.ASHA, J.
                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                    W.P.(C) No.12975 of 2014
           = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
               Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2014

                           JUDGMENT

Manjula Chellur,CJ We heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Government Pleader.

2. Petitioners are before this Court complaining harassment at the hands of respondent police. According to petitioners, they approached Human Rights Commission against 2nd respondent, therefore, a false case is registered.

3. As per submission of Government Pleader, on the private complaint lodged by 4th respondent before Thiruvalla Magistrate's Court, reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was made to the Police Station for investigation. In that connection, notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C came to be served on 1st petitioner, directing him to be present before 3rd respondent for investigation. Instead of appearing before police, he is before this Court.

W.P.C. No.12975 of 2014 2

4. According to petitioners, since no date is indicated they were confused. 1st petitioner also relies on Ext.P1 in support of his contention.

5. Even if no date is indicated, nothing prevented 1st petitioner to approach the police and inform them that no date was indicated and when he should appear before the police. He could have also called the police station to enquire the same. But instead of doing that, he has rushed before this Court.

6. In the light of above observations, we direct 1st petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer in order to investigate into the case referred by learned Magistrate. He is at liberty to take his Advocate with him when he appears before the Investigating Officer.

With these observations, this writ petition is closed.

MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

sj 24/05