Kerala High Court
Ramani vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 17563 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
RAMANI,
AGED 60 YEARS
W/O.KUNJUVELAYI, PALAKKAL VEEDU, MANATHA VILLAGE,
THIRUVATHRA P.O., CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR-680 516.
BY ADV M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA,
RING ROAD, THAZHEVETTIPRAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689
645.
2 LEELAMMA,
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 645.
3 HASINA,
CIVIL POLICE OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 645.
SRI E.C BINEESH- GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 17563 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a 60 year old lady, who alleges
that she is being harassed by the respondents so as
to force her to persuade the grand daughter to
withdraw a crime registered against them, on her
complaint, under the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act for short).
2. The petitioner says that though her grand
daughter is the victim in the aforementioned crime,
thus being entitled to all protection in law, the
respondents Police Authorities are harassing her
continuously forcing her to prevail upon the former
to speak in favour of the accused. The petitioner
alleges that the action of the respondents is illegal
and unlawful and therefore, prays that they be
directed not to do so.
3. The submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner as afore by Shri.M.R.Sasith Panicker,
learned counsel for the petitioner, were very
vehemently refuted by the learned Government Pleader,
Shri.E.C.Bineesh, submitting that what has been
averred in this writ petition are not the truth at
all, but are, in fact, machinations of the petitioner
in order to bring out pressure on the Police
Authorities to save her son, who is the victim in
another case, namely Crime No.827 of 2014, in which
he has been arrayed as an accused under Section 376
read with certain provisions of the POCSO Act. He
submitted that the Police Authorities have nothing to
do with the petitioner in any manner whatsoever and
that they have no intentions of summoning her or
questioning her and therefore, prayed that this writ
petition be dismissed.
4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is
indubitable that the duty cast upon this Court is
only to ensure that the petitioner or her grand
daughter is not put to any prejudice or harassment at
the hands of the Police Authorities. Since the
learned Government Pleader submits that they do not
require to be summoned or investigated into for any
crime by the Police, I do not see why this Court
should not dispose of this writ petition on such
terms.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ
petition, recording the undertaking of the learned
Government Pleader that petitioner will not be
summoned, questioned or harassed, in any manner, by
the Police Authorities with respect to any crime
which is pending against her son, or in which her
grand daughter is a victim; and consequentially
direct the competent Police Authorities to summon the
petitioner, if it becomes so required in future, only
after issuing a notice under Section 41A of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/2.9
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17563/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD
ISSUED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY.
