JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. An apparent surge in writ petitions alleging harassment to citizens by responsible Police Officers and Authorities have persuaded us to voice our opinion in this judgment on the inviolable desideratum of the members of the Police Force to act with self-control and tolerance and to treat citizens and all members of the public with respect and courtesy, acknowledging the rights of individuals and in using their powers, which is a part of the public trust entrusted with them, lawfully and proportionately. 2. In every civilized society, the public should be able to legitimately expect the Police to do the right thing in the right way; based on a code of good policing principles. The expectation of citizens to be treated fairly and with decency by the Police is at the core of all policing requisites; but we are seeing with unfortunate regularity that citizens rush to this Court alleging that certain Police Officers are acting in defiance or in deliberate contravention of accepted bahvioural and jurisdictional standards. 3. This case presents facts which illustrates how a Police Officer should never behave; and which errant behaviour has been found established in an internal enquiry by the Police Department themselves. 4. A quick glance at the most necessitous facts first: The petitioners allege that the third respondent-Circle Inspector of Police is harassing them and that they are being meted out criminal intimidation and threats by him on account of the alleged influence brought upon him by the fourth respondent and her father who, the petitioners say, is an influential politician. 5. The bedrock of the petitioner's allegations against the third respondent -Police officer is that he called them on 04.12.2017 at about 10 a.m. and demanded that they present themselves before him at his Police station in Thripunithura. They say that even though they were unaware of the reasons for which they were being so summoned, they went to the Police station on 06.12.2017 and that on that day, in the presence of the fourth respondent and her father, they were severely humiliated, intimidated and even threatened with death by the third respondent, which, the petitioners say, was intended to “extort money from them”. The petitioners further allege that the fourth respondent was their erstwhile employee who, though had caused loss to their business to the extent of more than Rs.50,00,000/ -(Rupees fifty lakhs only), was still demanding that they pay her certain large amounts. The petitioners assert that the fourth respondent was resorting to blackmailing them but pertinently have not disclosed in the pleadings the kind of blackmail to which they were being subjected to and then proceed to accuse the third respondent of acting at her beck and call, thus unnecessarily summoning them to the police station with the singular intent to harass them. 6. When these pleadings were first noticed by this Court on 21.12.2017 by another Bench, recording the imperative need for further detailed consideration, the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Ernakulam, the Commissioner of Police, Kochi and the Circle Inspector of Police, Tripunithura were impleaded as additional respondents 5 to 7 respectively, on the application of the petitioner. This was obviously done to verify the credence of the allegations made by the petitioners and subsequently, by another order, dated 24.01.2018, the same Bench indited that there is prima facie truth in the allegations made by the petitioners and further noticed that an inquiry had already been ordered through the Assistant Commissioner of Police against respondents 3 and 4 and consequently, time was granted to complete it with specific directions to file a report before this Court about the findings in such inquiry. 7. We see that a statement was, thereafter, filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Administration and Crimes), Kochi City, on 31st July, 2018, wherein it was recorded that the conduct of the third respondent was not befitting a disciplined Police officer and therefore, that he has been warned to be careful in the future. Along with the statement, Annexure R2(a) report, made by the Deputy Commissioner of Police to the District Police Chief, is also enclosed, wherein an endorsement is seen made by the District Police Chief that the third respondent -officer “has to be careful while dealing with complainants and petitioners in future” and that he stands warned. It is in the afore circumstances that we are now considering this writ petition. 8. It is in the afore circumstances that we are now considering this writ petition. 8. As has been indicated above, this Court had entered a prima facie view, which was recorded in the order dated 24.01.2018, that the action of the third respondent, in summoning the petitioners to the Hill Palace Police station, Tripunithura, even though the cause of action asserted by the fourth respondent, in the complaint made by her against the petitioners, occurred in Kollam. We further notice that the gist of the allegations made by the fourth respondent against the petitioners is that her daughter, who is studying in a college in Kollam, was called out from her hostel by the second petitioner and that an attempt to attack her were made by the second petitioner along with three other women and that her daughter became aghast and petrified; but that she somehow managed to escape their clutches. The complaint also states that the daughter of the fourth respondent, thereafter, returned to Kochi and that the fourth respondent, thereupon, filed a complaint before the nearest Police Station, namely the Hill Palace Station, Tripunithura. 9. We are today told by the learned senior Government Pleader that this complaint was, subsequently, transferred by the third respondent to the concerned Police station at Kollam and that investigation into it is now underway. The learned Senior Government Pleader then accusingly adds that the second petitioner is, however, now refusing to co-operate with the investigation into the complaint, which is now numbered as Crime No.2682/2018 of the Kilikollur Police Station. The learned Government Pleader further asserts that even though the conduct and behaviour of the third respondent -Police officer to the petitioners have been found not up to the mark by the concerned supervisory Police Authorities, his action in initially entertaining the petition filed by the fourth respondent cannot be found to be illegal, since when a complaint, in which the commission of a cognizable offence is alleged, is received by a Police officer in any Police station, such Police officer is obligated in law to take note of it and then transfer it to the appropriate Police Station. He says, therefore, that the prima-facie view recorded by this Court, in the order dated 24.01.2018, was perhaps on account of the fact that the pleadings on record made by the petitioners had not been tested sufficiently through a proper enquiry at that time. 10. When we carefully consider the assertions made by the learned senior Government Pleader, as also the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, it becomes indubitable to us that it will not be possible for this Court, in any manner, to condone or countenance the conduct of the third respondent to the petitioners when they had presented themselves before him in his Police station. A Police officer is always expected to act fairly and professionally and to remain within the limits of decency and not to breach it even under extreme provocation. The Police force is a professional Force and every civilized nation requires its Police Department to act with equanimity even in the face of extreme vexation, instigation or stress. 11. Unfortunately in this case, as has been recorded in Ext.R2(b) report produced along with the statement of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the conduct of the third respondent is far from such requisites. He has been found to have used appallingly intimidatory words against the petitioners, which for some grace did not degenerate into vituperatives and he is seen to have shouted and threatened them with death, which, his learned counsel attempts feebly to explain, was because he was caught by the pressure of circumstances at that time and particularly because the petitioners had behaved in a rude manner without even exhibiting the basic courtesy expected in a Police station. 12. Even though we hear the learned counsel for the third respondent as afore, it is not possible for us to approbate any situation when a Police officer breaches limits of decency and professional behaviour. If he behaves so, that Officer is not fit to be called an Officer or to be a part of the disciplined professional Force. 13. 12. Even though we hear the learned counsel for the third respondent as afore, it is not possible for us to approbate any situation when a Police officer breaches limits of decency and professional behaviour. If he behaves so, that Officer is not fit to be called an Officer or to be a part of the disciplined professional Force. 13. This is more so because such conduct of a Police Officer is certainly in breach of the relevant Statutes as also the circulars issued by the State Police Chief from time to time, which requires Police Authorities to conform to civilised behaviour to all citizens, from the Prince to the Pariah, and to deal with complainants and accused alike with the highest standards of probity and comportment. We refrain from saying more, since we see that the competent superior officers have already warned him; but we caution the third respondent very sternly that if any such instance is brought to the notice of this Court in the future from his side, we will not hesitate to take all necessary and appropriate action, as is warranted in law, to its fullest measure and extent. 14. In the afore circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition without any further orders, however, clarifying that the Police will be at liberty to investigate and pursue further action into Crime No.2682/2018 of the Kilikollur Police Station and that the second petitioner will be obligated to co-operate with such investigation as is enjoined upon her in law. Before we part, we deem a few general directions necessary to the superior Police officers; in particular to the State Police Chief, to ensure and maintain strict standards of behaviour in every member of the Police Force from the top down to the last. Any behaviour from a Police Officer, that shows a lack of civility, is a risk to the trust and confidence that the public reposes in the system of policing of a nation. Even though we are informed by the learned Government Pleader that the State Police Chief has been issuing circulars from time to time necessitating and prescribing decent and decorous behaviour to the public by the officers, in practice, we often see these being thrown to winds, at least by some of the officers. Even though we are informed by the learned Government Pleader that the State Police Chief has been issuing circulars from time to time necessitating and prescribing decent and decorous behaviour to the public by the officers, in practice, we often see these being thrown to winds, at least by some of the officers. This should now be checked by the State Police Chief scrupulously and we order him to make sure that all officers fall in line with the requirements in such circulars so that no citizen will feel fear in approaching an Officer for assistance and this nation can finally be rid forever of the colonially cemented apprehension of Police being persecutors and tormentors, rather than being their friend in need, as the Police Force is now perceived in various other countries.