Dismissed

Bijumon v. Superintendent of Police,Pathanamthitta

Kerala HC26 May 2011WP(C)/7750/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, spouses, filed a writ petition alleging police harassment following a private complaint. Respondents denied allegations and provided an undertaking not to summon the petitioners. The Court accepted the respondents' undertaking and dismissed the petition without further directions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. No further directions are given as respondents have undertaken not to harass or summon the petitioners.

Bijumon Vs Superintendent of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2011)

¶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 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 7750 of 2011(P)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

1. BIJUMON, S/O. K.,M.LUKOS, LIJO BHAVAN, PUTHUPARMBIL,PAINAMAN.P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

2. LATHA, W/O.BIJUMON, LIJO BHAVAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL, PAINAMAN.P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.LIJO

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.

¶15

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689691.

¶16

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689691.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

svs

¶20

W.P.(C). NO.7750/2011

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 02/03/2011 ISSUED TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶24

P2: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 02/03/2011 ISSUED TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION.

¶25

P3: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 02/03/2011 ISSUED TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE.

svs

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶31

***************************

¶32

**W.P(C) No.7750 of 2011-P *******************************

¶33

Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2011

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

BASANT, J.

¶36

Petitioners, spouses, have come to this Court complaining about the harassment by the police. According to the petitioners, the 1^st petitioner had occasion to file a private complaint against a police official and consequently petitioners are being unnecessarily vexed and harassed by the police. They pray that appropriate directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be issued to abate such vexatious conduct on the part of the police officials. The petitioners had through their lawyer issued a notice to respondents 1 to 3 to desist from such vexatious action. The same had not evoked any useful response and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners have come to this Court with this petition. According to the petitioners, they were being harassed on the basis of a complaint allegedly received from one Mr.Assi.

¶37

Respondents 1 to 3 have entered appearance before Court. They totally deny all allegations of harassment. According to them, the allegations are being raised in this

¶38

W.P(C) No.7750 of 2011-P 2

¶39

petition without any bona fides. No complaint has been received from the said Assi and the petitioners are not required by the police in connection with any case. They will not be called to the police station in connection with any pending matter, assures respondents 1 to 3.

¶40

In the wake of a lawyer notice issued to respondents 1 to 3, which allegedly remains controverted, we thought it necessary to explore the matter further. Respondents 1 and 2 were directed to file statements and respondent No.3 was directed to file affidavit specifically traversing the allegations raised. Such statements/affidavit have been filed.

¶41

Respondents 1 to 3 admit that the lawyer notice was received by them. But they maintain that the allegations are totally false and incorrect. No complaint of Mr.Assi has been received. The petitioners are not required at the police station. They were never asked to appear, nor was any action taken against the petitioners on the basis of such complaint. According to the 3^rd respondent, the 1^st petitioner has a questionable past. He is involved in as many as 3 crimes, which are all pending before courts as Calendar Cases after the submission of the charge sheets in those crimes. Allegations are being raised

¶42

W.P(C) No.7750 of 2011-P

¶43

¶44

unnecessarily by the petitioner in these circumstances, submit respondents 1 to 3.

¶45

The precise allegation is of present police harassment. We accept the submission of respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioners are not required in connection with any case before the police station. They shall not be called to the police station on the basis of any complaint now, it is undertaken. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the said submission/undertaking has been accepted. No further directions appear to be necessary in this matter now.

¶46

In these circumstances, accepting the submissions of respondents 1 to 3 in the statements/affidavits submitted by them, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶47

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶48

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶49

rtr/

Bijumon v. Superintendent of Police,Pathanamthitta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijumon v. Superintendent of Police,Pathanamthitta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.K.Thrivikraman Vs the S.I. of Police

Joseph George @ Jobin Varghese Vs State of Kerala and Others

Ummusalma Vs the State of Kerala

K.N.Ramaswami & Another Vs the State of Kerala & Others

Vembanad Cruises (P) Ltd. Vs the Superintendent of Police

Chellamma Vs Superintendent of Police