Vishnunath V vs The Station House Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 8555 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
         WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
                          WP(C) NO. 20833 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

              VISHNUNATH V
              AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.VIKRAMAN NAIR,
              RESIDING AT RAJALAXMI, PONEKKARA, CHERANALLOOR, EDAPALLY,
              ERNAKULAM -683544

              BY ADVS.
              MANU GOVIND
              RAHUL SURENDRAN



RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
              OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR - 680360

     2        SRI.MANOY MB
              AGED 48 YEARS
              S/O. MANJERI BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT 1//637A, MUNDOOR
              VEEDU, KAINOOR, PUTHUR, NEAR MOORKANIKKARA SHIVA TEMPLE,
              THRISSUR, PIN - 680014


OTHER PRESENT:

              T.K.SHAJAHAN-SR.GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.20833 OF 2022                 2




                             JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed complaining of harassment at the

hands of the 1st respondent in a civil dispute between the 2 nd

respondent and the petitioner's brother.

2. It is submitted that the Station House Officer was

summoning the petitioner to appear before him at the police

station and was also harassing him through telephone, requiring

settlement of the civil dispute between the petitioner's brother and

the 2nd respondent.

3. Though notice was taken out to the 2 nd respondent and

was duly served, there is no appearance for the 2nd respondent.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits, on

instructions, that the issue between the petitioner's brother and

the 2nd respondent appears to be a civil dispute and that there is

no attempt on the part of the 1st respondent to interfere in the civil

dispute or to harass the petitioner.

5. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of

the opinion that since no criminal complaint has been preferred

before the 1st respondent implicating the petitioner or his brother,

the 1st respondent would have no reason to summon the petitioner

to the police station or to harass him in connection with any civil

dispute.

In the above view of the matter, in case there is a any civil

dispute between the petitioner or his family members and the 2 nd

respondent, it has to be resolved through means known to law,

the 1st respondent cannot interfere the same. In case of any

complaint against the petitioner, the 1st respondent can take action

only in accordance with law and only after issuing due notice,

either under Section 41 A or Section 160 of the Cr.P.C.

This writ petition is closed accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

ska

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20833/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED. 11.04.2018, EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES

Exhibit2 A COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 24.06.2022, PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER

Exhibit3 A COPY OF THE SAID CIRCULAR NO. 04/2012, DATED __/03/2012

Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2021, PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) 20952 OF