ADVOCATE PRADEESH CHACKO vs STATE OF KERALA

The petitioner, a practicing lawyer of the Ernakulam District Bar,

has filed this writ petition alleging of police harassment. According to

the petitioner, he is appearing for an accused in Crime No. 297 of

2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station, and that in order to create

evidence and cover up their lapses, the police are harassing and

hunting him by repeatedly summoning him, questioning him, searching

his office and also threatening him. It is with these allegations that

this writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct respondents 4

and 5 or any other Officer investigating Crime No. 297 of 2017 of the

Nedumbassery Police Station not to harass the petitioner in connection

with the investigation into the crime. Further, the petitioner is also

seeking quashing of Ext.P1 notice issued by the 4th respondent under

Section 39 of the Kerala Police Act requiring the petitioner to appear

before him today at 4 p.m..

We heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the

official respondents.

The learned Government Pleader made available Mahazar dated

24.02.2017 prepared by the Investigating Officer showing recovery of

certain material objects involved in the crime in question allegedly from

the office of the petitioner. He has also referred us to the Confession

Statement said to be that of one of the accused in that case, which also

speaks of the accused having handed over these objects to the

petitioner. According to the learned Government Pleader, it is in the

light of the above materials that were gathered by the Investigating

Officer, as part of further investigation into the crime, that Ext.P1 notice

under Section 39 of the Police Act has been issued.

The learned Government Pleader denies the allegation of the

petitioner with respect to the harassment by the police.

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we find that,

as at present, the Investigating Officers have gathered sufficient

materials as part of investigation, which, according to them, justify

further questioning of the petitioner. When on such a satisfaction and

materials, action has been taken by the Investigating Officer for further

investigation, irrespective of correctness, legality or otherwise of the

materials relied by the Investigating Officer, which are to be raised at

the stage of the trial, we are afraid that at this stage, the High Court

exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

does not intend to interfere with such investigative process. Therefore,

we are not persuaded to interfere either with Ext.P1 or to pass any order

interfering with the process of investigation.

Insofar as the allegation of harassment is concerned, not only

that these allegations are denied, but also, nothing has been placed

before us to substantiate the allegation.

This writ petition is therefore dismissed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner requested that in pursuance

to Ext.P1 notice, the petitioner may be permitted to appear before the

4th respondent on 16.03.2017 between 10 a.m and 2 p.m. This request

was not objected by the learned Government Pleader or the

Investigating Officer, who was present in Court. Therefore, the

petitioner is permitted to appear before the 4th respondent on

16.03.2017 between 10 a.m and 2 p.m.