A JAYAKANTHAN Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed complaining of harassment by police.

(2.) Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: The Ist petitioner is conducting a jewellery shop. The 2nd petitioner is his brother and the 3rd petitioner is his relative. It is their case that on 14.10.2009 a police party led by the Ist respondent came to the shop room of the Ist petitioner and informed him that he had got information that some stolen gold articles were sold by the accused persons to him. It is their allegation that police wanted the petitioners to produce six gold ingots for nearly 50 sovereigns. The Ist petitioner has filed Ext.P1 petition claiming custody of the ingots produced by the police as the Ist petitioner was the actual owner in possession of those gold ingots. It is the case of the petitioners that the Ist respondent has told the Ist petitioner that he would have to face drastic consequences if he proceeds with the petitions. Petitioners placed reliance on the Government Order dated 16.6.1981 in support of the contention that petitioners cannot be harassed in the manner in which it has been done.

(3.) Learned Additional Director General of Prosecution has produced an order dated 16.9.2010 wherein a clause in the said order has been deleted and another clause has been inserted. Whatever that be, we have already passed an interim order wherein we have recorded the submission that the petitioners will not be compelled to withdraw the claim petition filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C and that there will be no harassment. We dispose of the writ petition recording the said submissions.