IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2445 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.V.PRASANNAKUMAR, KOTTAMPULLI HOUSE, POONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR-680 002. BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI. MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL RANGE, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR-680 001. 3. SHAHUL HAMMED, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR-680 001. 4. T.K.SHAIJU, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION- 680 020. 5. SHAJU, S/O.GOVINDAN, PHOTOGRAPHER, VADAKKOOT HOUSE, PARALAM P.O., PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR- 680 574. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.CHARISHMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.2445/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1589/1/2010 DATED 28/5/2010. P2 COPY OF THE RENT DEED DATED 8/1/2011. P3 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17/1/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.2445 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 to 5 to deter the police officials from indulging in vexation and harassment against the petitioner at the instance of the 5th respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, he has purchased an item of property complying with all the provisions of law from the 5th respondent. Ext.P1 is the copy of the said assignment/sale deed. That document was executed on 28.05.2010. 3. The 5th respondent, it is alleged, now wants to wriggle out of the said transaction. The 5th respondent is demanding re conveyance of the property to the petitioner. He is prevailing upon police officials and is wielding his influence with such police officials to compel the petitioner, to reconvey the property to him. The petitioner is not willing to do the same. W.P(C) No.2445 of 2011 2 The petitioner is not legally bound to do the same. The 5th respondent is not entitled to coerce the petitioner to reconvey the property to him. Police official respondents cannot also resort to such course for obliging the 5th respondent. The petitioner is willing to face any proceedings before the civil court to fight for his legal rights. The short prayer is that the police officials may be deterred from harassing the petitioner to compel him to execute the document of re conveyance to the 5th respondent. 4. All the respondents have been served. Respondents 1 and 2 appear through the learned Government Pleader. The 5th respondent appears through Advocate G.Sreekumar Chelur. Respondents 3 and 4 are named police officials and though served, they have not chosen to appear before Court. 5. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that the 5th respondent has no intention of illegally coercing the petitioner to execute a document of re conveyance. But he has a grievance that Ext.P1 transaction is not true, fair and genuine. He wants to take steps to avoid Ext.P1 sale deed. But the learned counsel undertakes that the 5th respondent shall not in any way attempt to coerce the petitioner to reconvey the property to him either by himself or through police officials. W.P(C) No.2445 of 2011 3 6. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 and 2 submits that it is true that a complaint was received from the 5th respondent alleging that he was compelled to execute a document and to vacate his residential building. On receipt of the complaint, both parties were called to the police station. Though attempt was made to persuade the parties to mutually settle their disputes, they have not settled their disputes. In these circumstances, the parties have been advised to resort to appropriate proceedings before the civil court. The police do not want to take sides. The police shall not be taking any steps as apprehended by the petitioner to compel him to execute any document in favour of the 5th respondent. 7. We take note of all the relevant circumstances. We take note of the submission of the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. We take note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the police officials. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no further directions are necessary in the light of the assertions that the 5th respondent or the concerned police officials will not in any way harass or vex the petitioner with demand for re conveyance of property conveyed by Ext.P1. W.P(C) No.2445 of 2011 4 8. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/