Haris P.H vs The Director General Of Police
2024 Latest Caselaw 9188 Ker

Kerala High Court

Haris P.H vs The Director General Of Police on 3 April, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 9577 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

          HARIS P.H., AGED 37 YEARS
          S/O. LATE HAMSA, PULIYAMPALLY HOUSE, NETTOOR P.O.,
          ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682040

          BY ADVS.
          SHABU SREEDHARAN
          JAYACHANDRAN NAIR G.(K/001878/2023)



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
          POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD P.O.,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

    2     THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOCHI,
          PARK VIEW, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011

    3     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
          POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKUALM - 682011

    4     THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM,
          THEVARA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682013

          SRI PM SHAMEER-GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 9577 OF 2024
                                 2


                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he is engaged in "hotel and real

estate business activities" and that he is conducting himself

without violation of law. He, however, concedes that he was

earlier implicated in certain crimes, but that all of them have

now been terminated, except one, which he is now defending,

as is entitled to him. He says that, however, the police

Authorities are continually harassing him, by following and

keeping a vigil on him; and thus being constrained to prefer

Ext.P4 complaint before the first respondent. He says that,

however, no action has been taken thereon, forcing him to

approach this Court through this writ petition.

2. Smt.Geethu Mohandas - learned counsel for the

petitioner, submitted that her client is now living a life of

peace, in conformity with law and that merely because he was

implicated in certain earlier crimes, the police are unfairly

treating him with suspicion. She added that, this is rendering

the lives of her client and his family, very difficult and is also a

violation of their privacy, as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of

India & Ors. [(2017) 10 SCC 1]. She thus reiteratingly prayed WP(C) NO. 9577 OF 2024

that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted and

the respondents be directed not to harass her client any

further.

3. However, in response, Sri.P.M.Shameer - learned

Government Pleader, submitted that the facts stated by the

petitioner are not accurate and that, in fact, he is included in

the "Rowdy List" prepared by the police under the provisions of

the Kerala Police Act. He added that the police are not

harassing the petitioner in any manner, but are only keeping a

vigil on his activities as is statutorily required; and hence that

this writ petition is an abuse of process. He thus prayed that

this writ petition be dismissed.

4. However, in reply, Smt.Geethu Mohandas submitted

that the afore allegation, that her client is included in the

"Rowdy List" is not correct and that he could not have been

because he is implicated only in one crime and that too, which

is without any basis.

5. It is thus obvious from the afore narrative that there is

a disputation between the parties as to whether the petitioner

is included in the "Rowdy List" or otherwise. This issue

certainly is one that the petitioner must deal with as per law. WP(C) NO. 9577 OF 2024

6. As matters now stand, the petitioner alleges that he is

being followed and harassed by the police, which is

controverted by the learned Government Pleader saying that

only a vigil is being maintained on him, as is required under the

Kerala Police Act.

7. In the afore circumstances, I record the submissions of

the learned Government Pleader; however, directing the

Authorities to ensure that any vigil on the petitioner is

maintained only as statutorily permitted and that too in an

unobtrusive manner, respecting his privacy and that of his

family members, to the extent the law warrants.

Needless to say, this Court has not entered into the

question as to whether the petitioner is involved in the "Rowdy

List" or otherwise, and such issues are left open.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 9577 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9577/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 10.8.2020 IN CRIME NO. 619/2020 OF THRIKKAKKARA POLICE STATION

Exhibit-P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 11.9.2021 IN CRIME NO. 1172/2021 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION

Exhibit-P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 31.10.2023 IN CRIME NO. 2070/2023 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION

Exhibit-P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 1.3.2024 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT