Udayakumar vs Deputy Superintendent Of Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 2780 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1944
                     WP(C) NO. 6379 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

         UDAYAKUMAR
         AGED 56 YEARS
         S/O CHELLAPPAN, URUMBANMALA, BISON VALLEY P.O.,
         IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685565

         BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1    DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
         OFFICE OF DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
         MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685612
    2    STATION HOUSE OFFICER
         RAJAKKAD POLICE STATION,
         IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685566
    3    ARAVIND.R
         PUZHAKKARAYIL HOUSE (RAJ BHAVAN), TEA COMPANY,
         POTTANKAD P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685565

         BY ADV SRI.E.C. BINEESH, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP      FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.03.2023,      THE COURT ON THE SAME       DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.6379 of 2023

                              2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of March, 2023

The petitioner approached this Court alleging police

harassment.

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner arranged

an Employment Visa to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent

went abroad and obtained a job also. The 3rd respondent was

not happy with the job and returned from Qatar. After coming

back, the 3rd respondent demanded the entire money paid by

him which the petitioner had spent for obtaining Visa. As the

petitioner did not repay the money, the 3 rd respondent filed a

complaint before the police. On the basis of that complaint,

the 2nd respondent-Station House Officer is summoning the

petitioner to the police station frequently and harassing the

petitioner. The petitioner is being pressurised to pay back

money to the 3rd respondent.

WP(C) No.6379 of 2023

3. Government Pleader submits that a complaint has

been received against the petitioner involving allegation of

Visa fraud. As a complaint was received, the police had to

make necessary enquiry and investigation to find out whether

there is any fraud or violation of immigration laws. It is for that

limited purpose that the petitioner was summoned. The

petitioner may have to be summoned again for the purpose of

investigating the said crime. There is no harassment

whatsoever meted out to the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader representing

respondents 1 and 2. In the facts of the case, notice to the

3rd respondent is dispensed with.

5. It is evident that the 2nd respondent has received a

complaint regarding a Visa transaction, in which allegations

are made against the petitioner. It is the specific case of

respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner is being summoned

only in connection with the said complaint. Respondents 1 WP(C) No.6379 of 2023

and 2 do not intend to harass the petitioner in any manner.

In the facts of the case, I am of the view that no

mandatory orders are required in this writ petition at this

stage. Recording the above submission, the writ petition is

disposed of.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk WP(C) No.6379 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6379/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS ExhibitP1 TRUE COPY OF THE VISA OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ARRANGED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19.10.2022 ExhibitP2 TRUE COPY OF THE FLIGHT TICKET ARRANGED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.12.2022 ExhibitP3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 11.01.2023