PRADEEPKUMAR Vs. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court seeking directions against the alleged police harassment meted out to the petitioner and his family at the instigation of respondent No.3. The petitioner's contention is that he has installed CCTV cameras around his house; aggrieved by which the 3 rd respondent has initiated complaints before the police. The CCTV cameras have been installed only for his personal protection especially since respondent No.3, who is a neighbour, is in inimical terms with him. The petitioner seeks enquiry into the excessive police action by the additional 4th respondent, who has been impleaded in his personal capacity as respondent No.2; and also for a direction to the official respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's right to install CCTV cameras. The petitioner also prays for a direction to avoid interference to the civil disputes and claims that the 2 nd respondent has been illegally visiting his house on the basis of the complaints filed by the 3rd respondent.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent vehemently opposes the prayers in the writ petition. It is submitted that there are civil disputes pending between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has also been carrying on activities detrimental to the peaceful life of the 3 rd respondent, who is a retired teacher, who resides in the neighbouring house with his aged wife and two women children. CCTV cameras have been installed in such a manner as to peek into the affairs in the neighbouring house. A complaint was lodged on the said issue. It is also submitted that even otherwise there are many civil disputes pending between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has been managing his property in a manner causing absolute harassment to his neighbour, the 3rd respondent. Reference is made to the documents produced along with the counter affidavit. Photographs indicate overhanging bamboo trees into the 3 rd respondent's property. There are disputes pending before the Civil Court and this Court with respect to the various illegal activities of the petitioner. It is submitted that the entire history of the dispute has been suppressed in the writ petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner opposes the submission of the 3rd respondent and submits that none of the disputes have been suppressed and the petitioner has spoken about it in the memorandum of writ petition.