PRINCE L Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court complaining of harassment by respondents 3 and 4. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: PETITIONER is a mason by profession. He and his family belong to Scheduled Caste community and are below the poverty line. It is stated that the 5th respondent had previous enmity towards the petitioner and due to false information police came to the residence of the petitioner. PETITIONER filed bail application which culminated in Ext.P1 order wherein the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that no crime is registered against the petitioner has been recorded and the application was closed. It is stated that in spite of Ext.P1 order the harassment continues. Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 are the representation and complaint filed before the 2nd respondent.

(2.) LEARNED Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that, after Ext.P1 a complaint was received from one Shaji alleging that the petitioner has trespassed into his property and abused his wife and other relatives in an intoxicated state. LEARNED Government Pleader would submit that there will be no harassment as such, but the official respondents shall proceed investigation in accordance with law and that if presence of the petitioner is necessary, it will be preceded by notice under Sec.160 Cr.P.C. Besides recording the same, we also leave it open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps before appropriate forum. We also leave it open to the petitioner to pursue with Ext.P2 representation and P3 complaint. The writ petition is disposed of as above.