IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29402 of 2011(A) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SANTHOSHKUMAR,AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.GOPI,KALLUMPARAMBIL HOUSE,MARAD.P.O, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.SAJI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HILL PALACE POLICE STATION,THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682301. 2. RAJESH.B,S/O.BAVA,CHAMAKKAD HOUSE, MELEKAD,THEKKUMBHAGAM,THRIPUNITHURA.P.O, PIN-682301. 3. RENJITH @ BEARLI,S/O.MANI, NO.1 FITNESS CENTRE,OPPOSITE TO SREENIVASA KOVIL, THEKKUMBHAGAM,THRIPUNITHURA.P.O,PIN-682301. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAMKUMAR STATE ATTORNEY SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN - R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29402 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE DATED 23/10/10 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF the AGREEMENT DT.26/07/11 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE DT.08/07/11 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 01/11/11 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE IG OF POLICE. //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.29402 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition complaining that at the instance of respondent Nos.2 and 3 with whom he is having certain monetary transactions, the police (1st respondent) is harassing him and compelling him to settle the monetary transactions. Even it is also alleged that the 1st respondent has illegally seized from the petitioner's custody a Samsung Mobile Handset as well as a Maruti Swift Car having Registration No.KL-43-B-3330. Hence, this Writ Petition seeking directions against police harassment and directions for release of the Maruti Swift Car and the mobile phone. 2. On considering this Writ Petition for admission, we directed Sri.C.R.Shyamkumar, the learned senior Government Pleader to seek instructions from the 1st W. P. C. No.29402 of 2011 -2- respondent. Today on the basis of the instructions from the 1st respondent, Sri.Shyamkumar submitted that the accusations and allegations contained in the Writ Petition are incorrect. There was verbal altercation between the petitioner and the respondents in Champakara market. Since it was reported that law and order situation was about to arise both parties were summoned. The enquiry revealed that there were monetary disputes between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. The police did not intervene in the monetary dispute at all. The Maruti car was taken into custody as it was revealed that the same was rashly and negligently driven by a person who did not have proper driving records. Therefore, the Hill Palace Police registered Crime No.2230/11 and the car was taken into custody as Thondi article with No.T.280/11. The car is produced before the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. It is always open to the petitioner to move the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for orders under Section 452 Cr.P.C. As regards the mobile phone, it was submitted W. P. C. No.29402 of 2011 -3- by Sri.Shyamkumar that the allegation of the petitioner is totally false. Sri.Shayamkumar also submitted that the 1st respondent does not intend at all to intervene in the monetary dispute between the petitioner and the two party respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioner's Samsung Mobile handset was seized by the 1st respondent who is even now keeping illegal custody of the same. The learned counsel drew our attention to Ext.P4 complaint submitted by the petitioner before the I.G. of Police wherein it is specifically alleged that the mobile phone belonged to the petitioner was illegally seized from the petitioner's possession. 4. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that it is not necessary to issue directions against alleged police harassment. We record all the submissions made before us by Sri.C.R.Shyamkumar, the learned senior Government W. P. C. No.29402 of 2011 -4- Pleader. We direct the petitioner to move the Additional CJM by appropriate application in Crime No.2230/11 for release of the Maruti Swift Car. We do not enter any finding on the correctness of the allegation that the petitioner's mobile handset was seized from the petitioner's possession by the 1st respondent. If the petitioner feels aggrieved it is open to the petitioner to pursue all remedies available to him in law for recovery of the mobile handset. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE