Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38287/2008 of ANSAR HUSSAIN Vs SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM POLICE on 30 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 30TH DECEMBER 2008 / 9TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38287 of 2008(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DECEMBER 2008 / 9TH POUSHA 1930
WP(C).No. 38287 of 2008(G)
---------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
ANSAR HUSSAIN, AGED 37 YRS.,
S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, KAVATHIYOTTU PUTHEN VEEDU, KARALIKONAM P.O., AYOOR, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.SYAM.J.SAM,
SRI.ARSHAD KHAN.
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DIST.
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHATHANNOR, KOLLAM DIST.
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KOLLAM.
R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
&
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =W.P.(C).No.38287 of 2008-G
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30[th]day of December, 2008.JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.:
The petitioner seeks an order against policeharassment. He states that he was an employee ofKerala State Audio Visual Reprographic Centre,which is not a party to this writ petition. Wehad the privilege of perusing the order keepingthe petitioner under suspension. It shows thatthe petitioner and others are alleged to haveobstructed the discharge of duties andresponsibilities of a person who was transferredinto the office where the petitioner and otherswere working. Going by the statements in thatorder of suspension, we find possibility of theemployer having instituted a criminal complaint, WP(C)38287/08
-: 2 :-
at least, before the police officer havingjurisdiction. In such event, there would be anenquiry followed by investigation, if necessary.Though the petitioner states that no crime hasbeen registered, we are not inclined to treat itas a case where the police could be accused ofhaving been harassing the petitioner or hisfamily. We have also gone through the contents ofExt.P1 representation. Barring the vaguestatements of harassment, there is really noharassment made out. We are satisfied that evenif the petitioner is summoned to the policestation, that would not be a harassment providedsuch summoning is done in accordance with law.We, therefore, do not find any ground to issueany orders. The writ petition is closed withoutprejudice.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,Judge.
Sha/301208
Sd/-T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge.