MADHUSOODHANAN KARTHA Vs. N AJITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, there is a dispute regarding partition of family property between himself and his brother, the first respondent which is pending consideration before learned Munsiff, Muvattupuzha in O.S.No.292 of 2009. While so it is alleged, that on 06.06.2009 when petitioner attempted to construct a compound wall the first respondent assaulted petitioner and his workers. But the police registered case against petitioner, his elder brother and workers as Crime No.1076 of 2009 at the instance of the first respondent. Petitioner was constrained to file a private complaint (Ext.P1) which was taken on file as C.C.No.487 of 2009. On 25.01.2010 it is alleged, the first respondent attempted to hit his car against petitioner, first respondent and his employees attempted to assault him and thereon petitioner gave Ext.P2, complaint to the third respondent on 26.01.2010. But no action was taken on that complaint. Third respondent summoned petitioner to the Police Station on 30.01.2010 as if to record his statement. Third respondent told petitioner that he has received several complaints against petitioner regarding the incident which (allegedly) occurred on 25.01.2010. It is alleged that petitioner was taken to different places for investigation and when his relatives and others came to the Police Station, he was released on bail on executing bond. Following that the fourth respondent, fabricating records registered three cases in succession against petitioner on the complaints (allegedly) given by the first respondent and his employees. The FIRs in those cases are Exts.P3 to 5. Those cases were investigated by the fourth respondent and it culminated in submission of final report. Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor has taken those cases on file as C.C.Nos.466, 465 and 464 of 2010 respectively. Petitioner preferred Exts.P6 and P7, representations to respondents 5 and 6 and Ext.P8 ,complaint to the District Police Complaint Authority but, no action was taken. Grievance of petitioner is that Exts.P3 to P5, FIRs were registered on extraneous considerations, whenever he preferred complaints the police refused to take action and he had to file private complaints but the police was too enthusiastic to register cases against him at the instance of the first respondent. ACCORDING to the petitioner, records were fabricated to make it appear that cases were registered on 29.01.2010 though complaints in that regard were obtained by the police only on 30.01.2010.

(2.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has submitted that Exts.P6 and P7 were enquired into by the appropriate authorities and reports were forwarded to the authorities to whom those complaints were given. Ext.P8, complaint before the District Police Complaint Authority was also considered and the same was also disposed of. LEARNED Public Prosecutor has invited my attention to the statement submitted by the Dy.S.P, Perumbavoor in answer to the allegations in this petition. It is stated that petitioner and first respondent are brothers and have dispute regarding partition of family properties which has given rise to various incidents based on which cases are registered. Petitioner and first respondent are living on enemical terms. It is stated that action was taken by the fourth respondent and final reports submitted in Exts.P3 to P5, FIRs in accordance with law.

(3.) LEARNED counsel submitted that petitioner apprehends harassment at the hand of respondents 3 to 5. Apparently there is no reason to think that respondents 3 to 5 would act otherwise than as provided under law. Respondents 3 to 5 shall ensure that they gave no room for such complaints and that they acted impartially. This writ petition is dismissed with the above directions.