IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 42453 OF 2023 PETITIONER:

KIRAN K B AGED 27 YEARS, S/O BABU K.S, KARYAVILAYIL HOUSE, NENMANIKKARA PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680302 BY ADV ANEESH K.R RESPONDENTS:

1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLCE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS,VELLAYAMBALAM, CITY-

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PUDUKAD POLICE STATION, PUDUKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680301

3 SURESH K N STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUDUKAD POLICE STATION, PUDUKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680301 SMT LIYA GEORGE SRI P M SHAMEER-GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT The petitioner says that he was attacked by a certain Sri.Subin and his relative Sri.Sharon, while he was working as a supervisor for a construction company; and that he, thereupon, filed a complaint against him, which is evident from Ext.P2. He says that, however, the afore mentioned Subin is a very influential person and that, at his instance, instead of investigating the complaint preferred by him, he is now being “hounded” by 2^nd and 3^rd respondents and “harassed”, with the singular intend of forcing him to withdraw the said complaint. He says that he, therefore, preferred Ext.P5 representation before the 1^st respondent, seeking necessary action against respondents 2 and 3; but that no steps have been taken thereon, thus, constraining him to approach this Court through this writ petition.

2. Sri.P.M.Shameer, learned Government Pleader, in response to the afore submissions of the petitioner, made by his learned counsel - Smt.Liya George, submitted that the afore refutations are without basis and that the petitioner was summoned to the police station only for the investigation of the complaint preferred by the afore mentioned Sri.Subin. He added that the petitioner has not been subjected to any harassment and that he must co-operate with the investigation of the complaint; and that he will now be summoned with regard to such complaint only after being issued with notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C.

3. However, in reply, Smt.Liya George submitted that the complaint preferred by Sri.Subin against her client is only a counterblast to the one preferred earlier against him. She asserted that this is clear from the facts, particularly since, the latter complaint was preferred nearly three months later. She asserted that respondents 2 and 3 are acting confutatively and hence that her client is entitled to be granted protection, as has been sought for.

4. Though I have recorded the submissions of the petitioner in some detail, the fact remains that it is the specific case of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner was summoned to the police station only for the purpose of investigation into a complaint filed against him. This Court cannot stop such investigation, though it is without doubt that the police officers cannot resolve the disputes, or force one of the parties to either withdraw complaint or settle it, in any manner whatsoever.

5. In fact, I notice that a learned Judge of this Court has already issued an order on the 1^st of March, 2024, directing the 2^nd respondent to “refrain from insisting on the petitioner to settle the criminal complaint lodged by him”. I have no doubt that this order requires to be maintained, though the petitioner is obligated to co-operate with investigation into the complaint against him, if any. However, it has to be borne in mind that his complaint also requires to be investigated properly, for which, the 2^nd respondent is equally responsible.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition, recording the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner will be called for further question qua the complaint preferred against him by the aforementioned Sri.Subin or Sri.Sharon, only after he is issued a notice under