2025:KER:29479 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 35290 OF 2016 PETITIONER: 1 A.S.SHAMSHEER AGED 55 YEARS AGED 55 YEARS, S/O ABDU, FATHIMA NIVAS, THANDEKKAD KARA, VENGOLA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY SRI.R.PARAMESWARA IYER RESPONDENTS: 1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERUMBAVOOR, 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUTHENKRUZ. 3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MOOVATTUPUZHA. 4 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA. 5 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF LAW AND ORDER POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6 ANIL KUMAR.S S/O SANKARAN, HARIVEEDU, KADAYIRUPPU P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MANJU ANTONEY W.P.(C.) No.35290 of 2016 2025:KER:29479 - 2 - THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C.) No.35290 of 2016 2025:KER:29479 - 3 - C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C.) No.35290 of 2016 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 02nd day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is that, the 6th respondent had contacted a lady named Ria, as also, others from the mobile number of the petitioner by using a technique called I.D. spoofing. The petitioner preferred Ext.P1 complaint, followed by Exts.P2 and P3 reminders in this regard, but was of no avail. He seeks a mandamus to register a case based on Ext.P1 complaint. 2. Based on the instructions received, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, if the calls are made by the technique of I.D. spoofing, there exists no mechanism to find out the same, as the same will not be reflected in the call data records of the petitioner’s number, or for that matter, the number of the 6th respondent. It was also submitted that the investigating agency contacted the victim, who would maintain that she has no grievance, W.P.(C.) No.35290 of 2016 2025:KER:29479 - 4 - whatsoever, in respect of the alleged incident. 3. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition can be closed, by giving a direction to the 2nd respondent (S.H.O., Puthencruz) to issue a reply to the petitioner based on Exts.P1 to P3 complaints and the steps taken on the same. Upon receipt of the reply, if the petitioner still maintains any grievance, it will be open for him to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law. The Writ Petition will stand closed accordingly. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE SKP/02-04 W.P.(C.) No.35290 of 2016 2025:KER:29479 - 5 - APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35290/2016 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY IF THE PETITION SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27-06-2016 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE