AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Joseph, J.—The petitioners have approached this Court for a direction to the respondents not to intervene into the privacy of the petitioners and not to harass or threaten them in connection with Crime No. 387 of 2010 of Mararikulam Police Station, by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order.
Briefly the case of the petitioners is as follows. Petitioners 1 and 2 are husband and wife. The first petitioner is a practitioner in Traditional Ayurvedic Medicines. Petitioners 3 and 4 are the daughter-in-laws of petitioners 1 and 2. It is submitted that the 4th petitioner is pregnant. Petitioners 1 and 2 have four sons. It is submitted that one of their sons, Praveen Gopinath, was implicated in Crime No. 387 of 2010 of Mararikulam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 66E(b) of the Information Technology Act based on the complaint of one Manju. Due to the influence of the said Manju, the police are trying to harass the petitioners, who are totally innocent. They have no intention to conceal Praveen. It is submitted that the search was conducted without any warrant and without following the procedure under law, including Sections 94 and 100 Cr.P.C.
The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, relies on the crime referred to in the writ petition. It is submitted that hard discs remains to be traced out. The police are enquiring as to where the hard discs are concealed. The learned Government Pleader submits that they will conduct the search strictly in accordance with the provisions under Sections 94, 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. and there will be no harassment as such.
Recording the said submission, we dispose of the Writ Petition. We make it clear that it will be free to respondents 2 to 4 to investigate the crime in accordance with law, including the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the crime.