DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. An apparent surge in writ petitions alleging harassment to citizens by responsible Police Officers and Authorities have persuaded us to voice our opinion in this judgment on the inviolable desideratum of the members of the Police Force to act with self-control and tolerance and to treat citizens and all members of the public with respect and courtesy, acknowledging the rights of individuals and in using their powers, which is a part of the public trust entrusted with them, lawfully and proportionately.

2. In every civilized society, the public should be able to legitimately expect the Police to do the right thing in the right way; based on a code of good policing principles. The expectation of citizens to be treated fairly and with decency by the Police is at the core of all policing requisites; but we are seeing with unfortunate regularity that citizens rush to this Court alleging that certain Police Officers are acting in defiance or in deliberate contravention of accepted bahvioural and jurisdictional standards.

3. This case presents facts which illustrates how a Police Officer should never behave; and which errant behaviour has been found established in an internal enquiry by the Police Department themselves.

4. A quick glance at the most necessitous facts first:

The petitioners allege that the third respondent-Circle Inspector of Police is harassing them and that they are being meted out criminal intimidation and threats by him on account of the alleged influence brought upon him by the fourth respondent and her father who, the petitioners say, is an influential politician.

5. The bedrock of the petitioner's allegations against the third respondent -Police officer is that he called them on 04.12.2017 at about 10 a.m. and demanded that they present themselves before him at his Police station in Thripunithura. They say that even though they were unaware of the reasons for which they were being so summoned, they went to the Police station on 06.12.2017 and that on that day, in the presence of the fourth respondent and her father, they were severely humiliated, intimidated and even threatened with death by the third respondent, which, the petitioners say, was intended to “extort money from them”. The petitioners further allege that the fourth respondent was their erstwhile employee who, though had caused loss to their business to the extent of more than Rs.50,00,000/ -(Rupees fifty lakhs only), was still demanding that they pay her certain large amounts. The petitioners assert that the fourth respondent was resorting to blackmailing them but pertinently have not disclosed in the pleadings the kind of blackmail to which they were being subjected to and then proceed to accuse the third respondent of acting at her beck and call, thus unnecessarily summoning them to the police station with the singular intent to harass them.

6. When these pleadings were first noticed by this Court on 21.12.2017 by another Bench, recording the imperative need for further detailed consideration, the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Ernakulam, the Commissioner of Police, Kochi and the Circle Inspector of Police, Tripunithura were impleaded as additional respondents 5 to 7 respectively, on the application of the petitioner. This was obviously done to verify the credence of the allegations made by the petitioners and subsequently, by another order, dated 24.01.2018, the same Bench indited that there is prima facie truth in the allegations made by the petitioners and further noticed that an inquiry had already been ordered through the Assistant Commissioner of Police against respondents 3 and 4 and consequently, time was granted to complete it with specific directions to file a report before this Court about the findings in such inquiry.

7. We see that a statement was, thereafter, filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Administration and Crimes), Kochi City, on 31st July, 2018, wherein it was recorded that th