Aadithya Prabhalal vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 13733 Ker

WP(C) NO. 10718 OF 2021            1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
     FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 10718 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

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

            BY ADV P.T.SHEEJISH


RESPONDENT/S:

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

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

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

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

            SRI P.P THAJUDEEN, GP




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   02.07.2021,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 10718 OF 2021               2



                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court complaining of harassment

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

station.

2. 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

4th respondent to refrain from harassing the petitioner.

3. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted

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

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.

4. I have considered the submissions advanced by Sri.

P.T.Sheejish, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader.

5. 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

above two modes. The petitioner shall not be unnecessarily summoned

without issuing appropriate notice. With these directions, this writ petition is

disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE sru

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10718/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

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

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

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



RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL