AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The Petitioners, a school teacher and her husband are before this Court complaining that the second Respondent Dy. S.P. is harassing them on the basis of some false complaint submitted by the 3rd Respondent with whom they are having some civil dispute. On considering the Writ Petition for admission, we directed the learned Government Pleader to seek instructions immediately from the second Respondent regarding the correctness of the averments contained in the Writ Petition and directed him further to seek instructions from the first Respondent/the District Police Chief as to what action was taken on Ext.P1 petition submitted by the first Petitioner before him. Today on instructions Sri.T.K. Vipindas the learned Government Pleader submitted that a private complaint was filed by the party Respondent before the Thiruvalla Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court accusing both the Petitioners of offence u/s 420 IPC in connection with an execution of a Sale Deed in respect of heavily encumbered property without disclosing the encumbrance. The above complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate u/s 156(3) to the local Sub Inspector and Crime No. 886/11 has been registered on the basis of the above complaint. Sri. Vipindas submitted that the material allegation in the above complaint is not only that the mortgage in favour of Canara Bank in respect of the property was not disclosed but even the fact that the Canara Bank has instituted a suit for sale as O.S.86/05 was suppressed before the Sub Court, Thiruvalla. The Petitioners'' presence was requested only in the context of investigation into the above crime. Sri. Vinod Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the statements in the private complaint filed by the third Respondent are wrong. The property which was sold by the 3rd Respondent belonged to the second Respondent only and the police absolutely has no business to come to the school where the first Petitioner is working. The police is insisting that the first Petitioner should produce her husband/the second Petitioner before the police. The second Petitioner has not absconded from the area and is even now working as a home guard to the knowledge of the Respondents. This is clear harassment under the guise of an investigation, so submits Sri. Vinod Kumar. Sri. Vinod Kumar also submitted that the Petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation in all respects but the police may be prevented from coming frequently to the school where the first Petitioner is working.
Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar and the averments in the Writ Petition and the materials placed, we are of the view that the Petitioner has not made out a case for issuance of the directions sought for. Evidently Crime No. 886/11 has been registered on the complaint submitted by the party Respondent. The above crime has to be investigated. We record the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that they will co-operate with the police in the matter of investigation of the crime. We also record the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that the police will not go over to the school where first Petitioner is working, in connection with the investigation. We dispose of the Writ Petition directing the officer investigating the crime (Crime No. 886/11) to expedite the investigation and submit final report at the earliest and directing him further not to visit the school where the first Petitioner is working in connection with the investigation. Similarly, we direct the Petitioners to cooperate with the investigation and to make themselves available for questioning by the investigating officer in the investigating officer''s office whenever request in that regard is made by the investigating officer.