Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
JOSE JOHN – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 complaint to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. His grievance is that no action has been taken on it.
2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned Prosecutor submitted that since the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are foreign nationals, no FIR can be registered. However, going by Ext.P2 complaint, there is specific allegation against the respondent No.6 as well. The allegation is that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 along with the respondent No.6 are coercing and intimidating the petitioner through his son to squeeze money from him. Needless to say, if the complaint discloses any congnizable offence, the police is bound to register FIR. Hence, the respondent No.3 is directed to take a decision on Ext.P2 complaint in accordance with law, within a period of one month.
The writ petition is disposed of.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
