AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioners are before us seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents not to enter in the residence of the petitioners or in the mobile shop run by the petitioners and disturb the peaceful life of the petitioners.
(ii) Direct the third respondent to conduct a proper enquiry personally or through any higher Officers on Ext.P2 complaint and initiate disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent for misuse of Office.
Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:
Petitioners are residents of Poyikattuserry under Chengamanadu Police Station. They had approached this Court earlier also, which culminated in Ext.P1 Judgment. It was directed that the petitioners shall not be harassed by the respondents. The complaint is that the matter has become worse and allegations are raised in paragraph 6 of the Writ Petition. Petitioners have filed complaint as evidenced by Ext.P3 receipt and eliciting no response, they are before us.
We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional DGP. Learned Additional DGP would submit as follows:
A mass petition has been received by the Home Minister, who forwarded it to the Police Officers for investigation, that the second petitioner was harbouring a member of a criminal gang. Enquiries were conducted and it is revealed that the allegation against the second respondent is not correct. It is submitted that there is no harassment to the second petitioner. We record the submission of the learned Additional DGP and close the Writ Petition. However, we make it clear that it is open to the petitioners to pursue Ext.P2 complaint before the concerned Officer or resort to complaining before the Police Complaints Authority against the Officers concerned.