SAGAR VINCENT Vs. BIJU PAULOSE M.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being threatened and harassed by the 1st respondent, who is the Investigating Officer in Crime No.297/2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station. It is submitted that a statement of the petitioner as a witness was recorded by the Police in connection with the above crime in the year 2017 itself. Later the petitioner had also given a statement under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. It is submitted that the 1st respondent had thereafter been harassing the petitioner requiring him to give a statement against the statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that since the petitioner had already given a statement in response to the notice issued to him, the action of the 1st respondent in requiring him to be present before the police repeatedly, for giving evidence is completely untenable. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted representations before the Superintendent of Police as well as before the court where the offence is pending trial. But the 1st respondent is proceeding to issue notices requiring the petitioner to be present. It is on these allegations that the writ petition is filed.