Kerala High Court
V.B Sreejith vs The Station House Officer on 6 August, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:58962
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 27167 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
V.B SREEJITH
AGED 44 YEARS, C/O BHASKARAN,
VAISAPPAD HOUSE, VELLANIKKARA,
MADAKKATHARA P.O, THRISSUR,
KERALA., PIN - 680651.
BY ADV SRI.M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION,
KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 690518.
2 BIJU
WORKING AS THE SUB- INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION,
KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 690518.
3 KURUVILA
WORKING AS, THE ADDITIONAL SUB- INSPECTOR OF
POLICE KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION,
KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 690518.
W.P.(C)No.27167 of 2025
:2:
2025:KER:58962
4 ASHWATHY
AGED 37 YEARS
MEENATHERIL VEEDU, PANDARATHURUTHU,
CHERIAZHEEKKAL P.O, KOLLAM,
KERALA, PIN - 690573.
BY ADV. SMT. ANIMA M., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.27167 of 2025
:3:
2025:KER:58962
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and is residing
in Thrissur District. The petitioner states that he is working as
the Manager of "Arabian Jewellery, Karunagappally". The 4 th
respondent was also working as a staff of "Arabian Jewellery,
Karunagappally". During this period, the petitioner and the 4 th
respondent fell in love with each other and got married on
08.11.2024.
2. The petitioner states that from the very date
of marriage, the 4th respondent was behaving indifferently
towards the petitioner and has harassed the petitioner both
mentally and physically. Later, due to the difference of
opinion, the 4th respondent has started to live in her parental
2025:KER:58962
home. Even though efforts were made by the relatives of both
the petitioner and the 4th respondent to resolve the problems
between them, everything failed and as a result, the petitioner
and the 4th respondent decided to dissolve the marriage.
Later, the petitioner and the 4th respondent decided to get
separated and entered into an agreement on 17.02.2025.
3. Even though as per the agreement, the
petitioner and the 4th respondent started to live separated, the
4th respondent continued to defame and harass the petitioner.
While things being so, on 26.06.2025, the 4 th respondent went
to the shop where the petitioner is working and used filthy
language towards the petitioner and the 4th respondent beat
the petitioner. Later, on 13.07.2025, the 4th respondent went
to the rented house of the petitioner and took away the gold
ornaments weighing 22 sovereigns without the permission of
the petitioner. Moreover, the 4th respondent has a habit of
2025:KER:58962
defaming the petitioner by posting the agreement copy of the
separation of their marriage in the social media platforms.
4. Aggrieved by the above act of the 4 th
respondent, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 complaint before
the 2nd respondent on 14.07.2025. After receiving the
complaint, the 2nd respondent has called both the petitioner
and the 4th respondent to Karunagappally Police Station for
settlement talks.
5. The petitioner submits that after reaching the
Police Station, the 3rd respondent, who is the Additional Sub
Inspector of Karunagappally Police Station, harassed the
petitioner and insisted him to live with the 4th respondent and
made the petitioner remain in the police station till 08.00 p.m.
The petitioner further submits that respondents 2 and 3
behaved in a harsh manner towards the petitioner. Aggrieved
by the acts of respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner submitted a
2025:KER:58962
representation before the 1st respondent seeking to take
action against respondents 2 and 3. Even though Ext.P2
representation was submitted by the petitioner, no action has
been taken and further respondents 2 and 3 are harassing
the petitioner.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing
respondents 1 to 3.
7. Government Pleader submitted that there
appears to be a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner
and the 4th respondent. Both of them filed criminal complaints
against each other. It was as part of enquiring and
investigation into the matter that the 2 nd respondent called the
petitioner and the 4th respondent to the police station. This is
only a part of the investigation and respondents 1 to 3 have
no intention to harass the petitioner. Respondents 1 to 3
2025:KER:58962
found that prima facie, this is a matrimonial dispute and so far
no criminal element is divulged.
In the circumstances, recording the said submission,
the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 to 3
not to harass the petitioner unless any concrete evidence of
criminal offfence is divulged.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
2025:KER:58962
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27167/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
14.07.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
THE TYPED COPY
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 16.07.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
ALONG WITH THE TYPED COPY
