Dismissed

Rajeev Jose Kolencherry v. the Director General of Police

Kerala HC9 Jun 2011WP(C)/13695/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking directions to prevent alleged police harassment regarding a criminal complaint was dismissed after the Court accepted the Government Pleader's assurance that action would be taken according to law for the registered crime.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no directions issued under Article 226 as police action against first petitioner was deemed necessary for investigation of registered crime.

Rajeev Jose Kolencherry Vs the Director General of Police — Kerala HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 13695 of 2011(J) --------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

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

¶8

1. RAJEEV JOSE KOLENCHERRY,AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.K.JOSE VARKEY,KOLENCHERRY HOUSE,PERIYAR LANE, BANK JUNCTION,ALUVA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. REEMOL RAJEEV,AGED 40 YEARS,

¶10

W/O.RAJEEV JOSE KOLENCHERRY,KOLANCHERRY HOUSE, PERIYAR LANE,BANK JUNCTION,ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SURESH BABU (VADUTHALA).

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

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

¶14

1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (P.H.Q), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01.

¶15

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM-31.

¶16

3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY,ERNAKULAM-683 572.

¶17

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALADY POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM-683 574.

¶18

*ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 IMPLEADED:

¶19

*5. RIJU ANTONY, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY, NJALIYATH HOUSE, ROSE GARDEN, ELINJIPRA.P.O., CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶20

W.P.(C). NO.13695/2011-J:

¶21

*6. G. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. GOPI, VADAKKE CHITTETH HOUSE, MUPPATHADOM, ALUVA, PIN – 683 110.

¶22

*ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 02/06/11 IN I.A. 8348/11.

¶23

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

W.P.(C). NO.13695/2011-J:

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF THE COMPANY. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE FIR NO.250/2011 DTD 25/03/2011 OF KALADY POLICE STATION. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF ANGAMALY.

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶34

WPC No.13695 of 2011 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 9^th June, 2011

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Basant, J.

¶37

The petitioners have come to this Court complaining about harassment by the police. According to the petitioners - spouses, police are unnecessarily harassing them on the complaint of persons like respondents 5 and 6. According to the petitioners, they have no culpable liability and have not committed any offence. Like many other persons, they were also part of a business run by others. They had joined as members in a group and had enrolled others. The company with which the petitioners and others had transactions is now facing financial difficulties. Links below them in the chain of business are raising false allegations against them and succumbing to their influence, police are harassing them. This in short is the grievance. It is prayed that appropriate directions under Article 226 may be issued to ensure that there is no undeserved harassment and vexation of the petitioner at

¶38

WPC No.13695/2011 2

¶39

the hands of the police.

¶40

Respondents 5 and 6 have not chosen to appear before us. The learned Government Pleader submits that a crime has been registered as Crime No.250 of 2011 of Kalady Police Station inter alia under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The first petitioner is an accused in that crime. Action in accordance with law is being taken by the police against the first petitioner as part of the investigation into the said crime. There is no question of any vexation or harassment. The first petitioner must either surrender before the investigating officer or before the learned Magistrate and seek bail or anticipatory bail. The bonafide efforts made in the course of investigation are being mis-described as harassment and vexation. So far as the second petitioner is concerned, police do not require her presence now as no crime is registered against her. No action is contemplated against her now. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 assures the Court that action in accordance with law for the due and proper investigation of the crime registered

¶41

WPC No.13695/2011 3

¶42

alone will be taken against the first petitioner. No action shall be taken against the second petitioner.

¶43

We accept the submissions of the learned

¶44

Government Pleader. We are in these circumstances

¶45

satisfied that no directions under Article 226 of the Constitution deserves to be issued.

¶46

Accepting the submissions of the learned

¶47

Government Pleader, we dismiss this petition.

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

css/

true copy

p.s.to judge

WPC No.13695/2011 4

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶55

WPC No.13695 of 2011

¶56

------------------------------------------Dated this the 2^nd June, 2011

ORDER

Basant, J.

I.A.No.8348 of 2011

Heard. Allowed. additional respondents 5 and 6 are impleaded.

¶61

WPC No.14554 of 2011

¶62

Heard. Admitted. Notice given and the learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 to 4. Issue notice to additional respondent Nos.5 and 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is accordingly permitted to take out notice to respondent Nos.5 and 6 by special messenger. Verify service and call again on

WPC No.13695/2011 5

9.6.2011.

R.BASANT

K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶67

css/

Rajeev Jose Kolencherry v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Jose Kolencherry v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Board of Trustees Port of Cochin Vs Jaisu Shipping Company Private Ltd. and

Rev.Fr.Nicholas Pallivathukkal Vs State of Kerala

Surendran Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Arun Ramachandran Nair Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumari Vs Superintendent of Police

K.Girija Kumari Vs Commissioner of Police