Manjula Chellur,CJ
We heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Government Pleader.
2. Petitioners are before this Court complaining harassment at the hands of respondent police. According to petitioners, they approached Human Rights Commission against 2nd respondent, therefore, a false case is registered.
3. As per submission of Government Pleader, on the private complaint lodged by 4th respondent before Thiruvalla Magistrate's Court, reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was made to the Police Station for investigation. In that connection, notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C came to be served on 1st petitioner, directing him to be present before 3rd respondent for investigation. Instead of appearing before police, he is before this Court.
W.P.C. No.12975 of 2014 2
4. According to petitioners, since no date is indicated they were confused. 1st petitioner also relies on Ext.P1 in support of his contention.
5. Even if no date is indicated, nothing prevented 1st petitioner to approach the police and inform them that no date was indicated and when he should appear before the police. He could have also called the police station to enquire the same. But instead of doing that, he has rushed before this Court.
6. In the light of above observations, we direct 1st petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer in order to investigate into the case referred by learned Magistrate. He is at liberty to take his Advocate with him when he appears before the Investigating Officer.
With these observations, this writ petition is closed.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
sj 24/05