Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56943
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J
SUJITH K.S – Appellant
Versus
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 23279 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SUBI K., SRI.ARUN JOSE THOMAS
For the Respondents: SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP.
Police actions limited to procedural notices do not constitute harassment under statutory provisions.
Headnote:The writ petition challenges alleged harassment of the petitioner, an accused in a police case under various sections including Sections 126(2), 296(b), 118, and 351(2) r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS. The Court finds that the only action taken by the police was issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, thereby dismissing allegations of harassment. Ultimately, the petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of harassment based on procedural actions are unfounded. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court finds that the police adhered to legal provisions in issuing notices. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2025 The writ petition is filed on the premise that the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed by the respondent, a Sub Inspector at the Muttom Police Station.
2. Learned Government Pleader submits on instructions that the petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.424 of 2025 registered at the Muttom Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 296(b), 118 and 351(2) r/w Section 3(5) of the B NS and except issuing notice under Section 35(3) of NS S, requiring the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer, no harassment as alleged has been meted out.
3. Insofar as the petitioner is the accused in a crime and the Police has only issued him with notice under Section 35(3)of BNSS , the allegation of harassment cannot be countenanced.
The writ petition is hence dismissed.
