IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 6482 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.N.SREEKUMAR, AGD 35 YEARS, S/O.NEELAKANDA KURUPPU, SOPANAM MADASSERY HOUSE, THURUTHUSERY, MEKADU P.O., NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSEPCATOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY -PIN- 683 101. 2. THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION ANGAMALY - 683 101. 3. ANI AGED ABOUT 40,S/O. GOPAN PILLAI, ARACKAL HOSUE (SHIVAM), CHENGAMANADU P.O. CHENGAMANADU - 683 556. 4.* SAJI, AGED ABOUT 42, S/O. BHUVENNDRAN, POIKATTUSERY, CHENGAMANADU - 683 556.(DELETED) * RESPONDENT NO.4 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 28/3/11 IN THE WPC. 5. REGHU DOCUMENT WRITER, T.B.JUNCTION, ANGAMALY - 683 101. 6. B.SHAJI, S/O. BHUVENNDRAN, POIKATTUSERY, CHENGAMANADU - 683 556. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R5 BY ADV. SRI.G.D.PANICKER SMT.JEENA JOSEPH R3 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.6482/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 23/4/2005. P2 COPY OF THE F.I.R. DATED 19/2/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R6(A) COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25/1/2005 ISSUED BY PETITIONER. R6(B) COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 28/1/2006 ISSUED BY PETITIONER. R6(C) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24/4/2006 FILED BY 6TH RESPONDENT. R6(D) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12/3/2006 BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE. R6(E) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29/12/2005 BEFORE THE POLICE. R6(F) COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4509/2008. R6(G) COPY OF THE S.T.NO.73/2009 BEFORE THE JFCM COURT-1 ALUVA. R6(H) COPY OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE DATED 19/12/2011. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6482 of 2011-I ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to the petitioner against the apprehended wanton, culpable and violent conduct of respondents 3 to 6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the 4th respondent allegedly left India and he has been deleted from the array of respondents. 2. According to the petitioner, he was the General Manager of M/s Surya Group of Companies. In such capacity, he had to deal with the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent was engaged as distributor of Surya Group of Companies. As the petitioner found that Surya Group of Companies was not working properly, he left M/s Surya Group of Companies. The 6th respondent claiming that amounts are due from Surya Group of Companies to the 6th respondent, is vexing the petitioner. The 6th respondent initiated a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable W.P.(C) No.6482 of 2011 -: 2 :- Instruments Act against the Proprietor of Surya Group of Companies. That prosecution ended in acquittal. Thereafter the 6th respondent, along with the 3rd respondent, started their attempts to vex and harass the petitioner with renewed vigor. Thereafter a document was executed by the petitioner's father in favour of the 6th respondent who is the brother of the 6th respondent towards partial settlement of the claim against the petitioner by the 6th respondent. No amount was actually due. But to purchase peace, the petitioner's father had executed such a document in favour of the 4th respondent. But even after execution of the document, respondents 3 to 6 were continuing to indulge in objectionable conduct. The petitioner was allegedly compelled and forced under duress to execute a promissory note for Rs.10 lakhs. The petitioner promptly complained about such illegal conduct before the police. Police registered a crime. In the crime the investigation has now been closed and the crime has been referred. The petitioner even now apprehends that respondents 3 to 6 may indulge in objectionable violent conduct against him. The short prayer of the petitioner is that he may be afforded protection for his life from respondents 3 to 6. 3. Respondents 3 and 6 have entered appearance through W.P.(C) No.6482 of 2011 -: 3 :- a counsel. Respondent No.5 has also entered appearance through another counsel. Respondent No.5 states that he - a document writer, had nothing to do with the transaction between the petitioner on the one hand and the 6th respondent and his relatives on the other. His professional services were requisitioned for writing a demand promissory note. He had offered such services for remuneration. He is not aware of anything more than the said voluntary execution of the demand promissory note by the petitioner in favour of the 6th respondent. All other allegations are false. The 5th respondent has nothing against the petitioner and undertakes that he shall not indulge in any violent conduct against the petitioner. 4. Respondents 3 and 6 submit that all the allegations raised by the petitioner are false. According to them, though the petitioner purported to enter into the transaction in the name of the Company, actually the petitioner was playing fraud. He had played fraud both on the company and the 6th respondent. A cheque was handed over by the petitioner to the 6th respondent making it appear that it is a cheque issued by the Proprietor of his company. But, as a matter of fact, it turned out to be a forged cheque. The prosecution under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act on the basis of that cheque ended in acquittal. W.P.(C) No.6482 of 2011 -: 4 :- Thereafter there was a voluntary settlement. The father of the petitioner executed a document in favour of respondents 4 and 6 for partial discharge of the liability of the petitioner to the 6th respondent. For the remaining liability, a demand promissory note was voluntarily executed by the petitioner in favour of the 3rd respondent. To wriggle out of the obligations created by these documents, the petitioner is now raising false allegations and complaining about the alleged threat to his person. Respondents 3 and 6 have no intention whatsoever to take law into their hands and proceed against the petitioner. Steps shall be taken for enforcement of the claim for amounts under the promissory note executed by the petitioner. If any unnecessary prosecution is pursued against respondents 3 to 6, such vexatious action shall be resisted in accordance with law. Except this, the party respondents have no intention to act against the petitioner in any manner. Their undertaking may be recorded. No directions under Art.226 of the Constitution are now liable to be issued in faovur of the petitioner, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that in the perception of the police also there is no threat to the person or life of the petitioner. No directions under W.P.(C) No.6482 of 2011 -: 5 :- Art.226 of the Constitution are hence liable to be issued. If there be any threat against the person or life of the petitioner from respondents 3 to 6, the needful shall be done and appropriate action shall be taken by the police officials who are duty bound, even in the absence of any specific direction from this Court to take necessary action. In these circumstances, this petition may be closed accepting the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that there is still a threat to his life and person. In these circumstances, directions may be issued, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. We have heard all counsel. We have considered all the relevant inputs. It is, undoubtedly, the burden of the police to ensure that crimes are prevented and that crimes, if any, committed are proceeded against appropriately in accordance with law. Ordinarily and normally no directions of this Court are necessary to the police for discharge of their duty under law. But exceptional circumstances may exist which may prompt this Court to issue directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to the police to remind them of and compel them to discharge their W.P.(C) No.6482 of 2011 -: 6 :- duty under law. 8. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, we are not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where any such direction can, need or ought to be issued. We take note of the submission of respondents 3, 5 and 6 through their counsel that they shall not pose any threat to the life or person of the petitioner. We further take note of and record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that there is no threat perceived by the police against the life and person of the petitioner and if there be any such threat, action in accordance with law shall be taken by respondents 1 and 2. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no specific directions can, need or deserve to be issued. 9. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed; we do so taking note of the specific submission on behalf of the police officials by the learned Government Pleader and on behalf of respondents 3, 5 and 6 by their counsel. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge