AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner approaches this Court with a complaint of police harassment against respondents 1 and 2. It is stated that he is a law abiding
citizen, residing peacefully with his wife and two daughters, aged 14 and 9. However, respondents 1 and 2 are frequenting his house, enquiring
about his involvement in criminal cases, though he has no criminal antecedents. It is also stated that respondents 1 and 2 claim that he is notoriously
known by name ""Vadivall Jossy"". He filed application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act as Ext.P1 seeking information regarding
the cases pending against him and also documents, wherein he has been referred to as ""Vadivall Jossy''. Ext.P2 is the reply he received stating that
there is no information regarding the police visiting his house and that there is no document referring him by name ""Vadivall Jossy"". The petitioner
states that he is still being harassed by the police visiting his house at odd hours and insulting his family members, including his daughters, and
therefore, he is left with no other option than to approach this Court for abatement of harassment allegedly meted out by the respondents 1 and 2.
We heard the Learned Senior Government Pleader appeared for respondents 1 to 3, and the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
A written statement has been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is a person, whose name is included in the rowdy
list and that he is a history-sheeter, who has not less than five crimes registered against him at Ernakulam Town North Police Station, which
includes offences ranging from Sections 323 to 307 I.P.C. Although the records in the Police Station does not refer to him as ""Vadivall Jossy"", he
is popularly known by that name in the locality because of his continued involvement in criminal activities. The respondents have never insulted or
harassed the members of petitioner''s family by visiting at odd hours as alleged. The petitioner''s presence at his house is however to be verified
frequently by the police, because he is in the rowdy history-sheet and various criminal cases are pending against him. However, such verification
has never caused any inconvenience to him or the members of his family.
Going by the statement of the police, it is adequately clear that the petitioner is in the rowdy history-sheet having several crimes registered
against him. It is the duty of the police officer to inquire the whereabouts of a persons having criminal records and nothing can be done to prevent
them from doing so. There is no specific complaint of a particular instance about the petitioner or the members of his family being harassed by the
police in any manner. Hence, we do not find any reason to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to issue any positive direction to
respondents 1 and 2. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.