IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9900 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ NOORDEEN MUSALIYAR, DHARUL REHUMA, KUNDUMON CHERRY, VELICHIKKALA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM DIST. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM DIST. 3. RADHAKRISHNAN, JAYAHARI, MUHATHALA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.3.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. --------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9900 OF 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is a business man. He submits that he borrowed an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the 3rd respondent, who is a money lender, in the year 2003. While receiving the loan amount, he issued two signed blank cheques and a signed stamp paper worth Rs.50/- as security to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner submits that he repaid the entire amount. Even then, the 3rd respondent started harassing him demanding further payment. So he filed a petition before the police in September, 2007. The police called both sides and enquired about the matter. Thereafter, for some time there was no trouble from the 3rd respondent. Recently, again he started threatening and harassing the petitioner demanding the alleged balance amount due in the loan account. Apprehending threat to his life and that of his family members, the petitioner preferred Ext.P1 representation before the police. Alleging that W.P.(C) No.9900/2008 2 the police did not take any effective action on it, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations against him. According to him, the petitioner is a very affluent business man. He borrowed an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the 3rd respondent and issued one cheque to him. The same when presented before the bank bounced and the 3rd respondent has, therefore, filed a complaint before the Magistrate's Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. To create a defence, which could be urged in that criminal prosecution, this writ petition is filed making unfounded and false allegations. The 3rd respondent also submits that he has no plan to physically attack or harass the petitioner. He is a law abiding citizen. He will take recourse to recover the amount due to him through the process of law only. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dealing with the averments in the counter affidavit. 3. Learned Government Pleader upon instructions, submitted that based on Ext.P1 complaint, a crime has been registered against the 3rd respondent under the Money Lender's W.P.(C) No.9900/2008 3 Act on finding that the 3rd respondent is engaged in money lending without taking any registration. The submission of the 3rd respondent is that he has no intention to harass the petitioner or attack him and he will take recourse to recover the amount due to him through the process of law only, will redress the grievance of the petitioner. Recording that submission, this writ petition is disposed of. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps