Preetha Vipin vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 15346 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
         THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 676 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:

             PREETHA VIPIN
             AGED 39 YEARS
             W/O. VIPIN C. WILSON, CHERUVATHUR HOUSE,
             SAMITHI ROAD, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM.

             BY ADV R.MANOJ



RESPONDENT/S:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
             MINISTRY OF HOME, STATE SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

     2       THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
             VANITHA CELL, ERNAKULAM.

     3       VIPIN.C. WILSON,
             AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.LATE C C WILSON, CHERUVATHUR HOUSE,
             SAMITHI ROAD, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM.


OTHER PRESENT:

             SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 676 OF 2020
                                     2

                 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
              ===================
                 WP(C) No. 676 OF 2020
              ===================
           Dated this the 22nd day of July 2021


                          JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following

prayers;

" i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 2nd respondent not to interfere in the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and not to summon the petitioner to the police station except in accordance with law.

ii. Issue such other further reliefs as the necessary in the interest of justice."

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, there is

police harassment at the instance of 3rd respondent. Today,

when the matter came up for consideration, the learned

Government Pleader submitted that, a petition is filed by the

mother in law of the petitioner. The learned Government

Pleader submitted that, only a petition enquiry was WP(C) NO. 676 OF 2020

conducted. The learned Government Pleader submitted that,

the allegations in the writ petition that there is police

harassment towards the petitioner is absolutely incorrect.

The learned Government Pleader submitted that, the same

can be recorded.

3. In the light of the above submission, I think, this

writ petition can be disposed recording the submission of the

learned Government Pleader that, there is no police

harassment.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed recording the

submission of the learned Government Pleader that, there is

no police harassment towards the petitioner. But I make it

clear that, if there is any criminal activities are committed by

the petitioner, the police will do the needful in accordance to

law.

(Sd/-)

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE LU WP(C) NO. 676 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 676/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MC NO.45/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO.100/2019 DATED 20.12.2019.

             //   True Copy   //          PA To Judge