Disposed

Aadithya Prabhalal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jul 2021WP(C)/10718/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a father complaining of harassment by a Circle Inspector who summoned him without issuing a notice. The High Court observed that no crime was registered against the petitioner and directed the police officer to issue appropriate notice under Section 41A or Section 160 Cr.P.C. if appearance was necessary.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to refrain from unnecessary summoning and to follow Section 41A or 160 Cr.P.C. if appearance is required.

Aadithya Prabhalal Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 10718 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 10718 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

AADITHYA PRABHALAL AGED 21 YEARS S/O MADHU, JAYANTHY NIVAS, WARD NO. 19, THANNEERMUKKOM PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 527.

¶10

BY ADV P.T.SHEEJISH

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶13

2 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE, OFFICE OF THE I.G. OF POLICE, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, KERALA 682 031.

¶14

3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, CCSB ROAD, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA 688012.

¶15

4 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARRARIKULAM POLICE STATION, NH 66, KANJIKUZHY, S.L. PURAM, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA 688 523.

¶16

SRI P.P THAJUDEEN, GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶18

ON 02.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 10718 OF 2021

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner has approached this Court complaining of harassment

¶23

by the 4th respondent, the Circle Inspector of Police, Mararikkulam police station.

¶24

According to the petitioner, on 19.4.2021, a minor girl with whom the petitioner has acquaintance called him over phone and informed him that she was sexually abused by a Doctor who was running a homeo clinic at Kanichukulangara junction. The petitioner rushed to the doctor’s clinic and rescued the girl. The relatives of the girl lodged a complaint before the police and a crime was registered under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The accused was arrested and remanded. The petitioner states that later, the 4th respondent summoned the petitioner and demanded that he should persuade the relatives of the girl to withdraw the allegations levelled against the doctor. When the petitioner informed him about his inability to do so, he was allegedly threatened. According to the petitioner, he is being continuously summoned to the police station and is being subjected to harassment. Left with no alternative, he lodged Exts.P2 and P3 complaints before the police. His grievance is that the harassment is continuing unabated. It is in the afore circumstances that he is before this Court seeking directions to the

¶25

WP(C) NO. 10718 OF 2021

¶26

¶27

4th respondent to refrain from harassing the petitioner.

¶28

The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted

¶29

that the assertion of the petitioner that a crime was registered against the doctor is true. However, it is stated that the petitioner entered the clinic of

¶30

the doctor and committed mischief and even attacked the doctor. The daughter of the Doctor lodged a complaint before the police raising several allegations against the petitioner. On receipt of the complaint, the petitioner was summoned to the police station to ascertain his version. According to the learned Government Pleader, the 4th respondent has not committed any sort of harassment and the allegations to that effect are incorrect.

¶31

I have considered the submissions advanced by Sri. P.T.Sheejish, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶32

On a query by this Court, the learned Government Pleader fairly admitted that no crime has been registered against the petitioner till date. If that be the case, if the presence of the petitioner was required, a notice under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. ought to have been issued. If a reasonable complaint has been received and if reasonable suspicion exists that the petitioner has committed a cognizable offence and if his arrest is not required, the officer was required to issue a notice of appearance under Section 41A. The Station House officer ought to have pursued either of the

¶33

WP(C) NO. 10718 OF 2021

¶34

¶35

above two modes. The petitioner shall not be unnecessarily summoned without issuing appropriate notice. With these directions, this writ petition is

¶36

disposed of.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

sru

¶41

WP(C) NO. 10718 OF 2021

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10718/2021

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OUTPATIENT REGISTRATION CARD DATED 21.4.2021 FROM THE THALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, CHERTHALA.

¶46

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 22.04.2021 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶47

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 22.04.2021 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶48

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

Aadithya Prabhalal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aadithya Prabhalal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayisha T.K Vs District Police Chief

Sathian M. Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Suhail S. Vs the District Collector

Jeeva @ Jeevakkani Vs the District Collector

Rajan C.v., Vs State of Kerala