Rarimol.P.R vs The Sub Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 1641 Ker

WP(C).No.24755 OF 2020(T)            1




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

    FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.24755 OF 2020(T)


PETITIONER:

               RARIMOL.P.R
               AGED 32 YEARS
               W/O. PRAMOD, KANDATHIL HOUSE, AROOR P.O. CHERTHALA,
               ALAPPUZHA 688 534.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
               SRI.T.R.TARIN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               THEVARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM 682 013.

      2        COCHIN SHIPYARD EMPLOYEES,
               CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, NO. E. 750,
               KOCHI 682 015, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.

      3        P.R. MANI
               SECRETARY, COCHIN SHIPYARD EMPLOYEES CONSUMER CO-
               OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, NO. E 750, KOCHI 682 015.

      4        SUDHEESH KUMAR,
               SUPERVISOR,
               COCHIN SHIPYARD CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THEVARA,
               KOCHI 682 015.

      5        STATE OF KERALA,
               REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
               SECRETARIAT , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
 WP(C).No.24755 OF 2020(T)         2




OTHER PRESENT:

             C.N.PRABHAKARAN -SR.P.P

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.24755 OF 2020(T)              3




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of January 2021

The writ petitioner is an employee of Cochin Shipyard Employees

Consumer Co-operative Society Ltd., Thevara. She joined the service

with effect from 22.7.2015. Her husband is an employee of Cochin

Shipyard Employees Consumer Co-operative Society. The fourth

respondent is working as a supervisor in the Society. He used to

harass the petitioner sexually by making phone calls and by sending

SMS with request for sexual favors and used to make sexually

coloured remarks. Though she complained to the third respondent no

action was taken against him. So she filed a complaint before the first

respondent against him. But still no case has been registered against

him. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 1 st respondent to register Ext.P1 complaint and First Information Report in accordance with law, investigate and take appropriate action before the 4 th respondent.

b) grant such other reliefs as prayed for from time to time

including cost of this proceedings."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the

learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed a statement of the

first respondent who is the Station House Officer, Ernakulam Town

South Police Station regarding the details of the allegation raised

against the fourth respondent. In the statement it has been

specifically stated that on receipt of the complaint from this petitioner,

an enquiry was conducted by him with the assistance of women police

constables and they had visited the Society where both the parties are

working. On enquiry it is revealed that the allegations levelled against

the fourth respondent are absolutely false and baseless. In fact a case

was registered against the husband of the petitioner who is also

working in the shipyard as Crime No.630/2020 under Sections 294(b),

506 IPC and Section 120(O) of KP Act. Now the investigation of the

case is going on. Only to wreak vengeance upon the officials who

initiated action on her husband and as a retaliation of crime registered

against him, it appears that a false complaint alleging sexual

harrassment has been filed and that is the report filed by the SHO.

Since the SHO who investigated the case has filed this report stating

that the allegations levelled against the fourth respondent are false

and baseless, this writ petition is only to be closed accepting the

report.

Therefore, the writ petition is closed. The petitioner is at liberty

to approach the court concerned with a private complaint, if she is still

having any grievance against the fourth respondent.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

smm                                               JUDGE





                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT BY THE
                     PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
                     9.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P2           TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED A
                     RECEIPT FOR HAVING RECEIVED THE PETITION.

EXHIBIT P3           TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE

PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 5.11.2020.