IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7465 of 2008(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THOMAS MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 39 YEARS, MELATHUCOCHIYIL HOUSE, IRIMPANAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY VARGHESE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRIPUNITHURA. 2. MUHAMME AJMAL KHAN, S/O. MUHAMMED BASHEER, AGED 26 YEARS, MANGALATHU PADIYIL HOUSE, KOLATHUMKADAVU, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KUNHABDULLA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.7465/2008-L: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 09/02/2008 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 03/03/2008 TO THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.7465 OF 2008-L -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the 1st respondent is harassing him at the instance of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is a tour operator and the 2nd respondent was one of the drivers of the petitioner. There is some dispute between them. According to the petitioner, some amount is due to him from the 2nd respondent. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent maintains that the petitioner is liable to pay certain amounts to him. The petitioner submits, the Circle Inspector of Police has summoned him to the police station and compelled to give a cheque for an amount of Rs.18,128/=. Later, he was directed to pay the said amount in cash and get back the cheque leaf. The petitioner submits, the 2nd respondent has threatened him with physical harm and he filed Ext.P1 representation before the police, but no action has been taken out. The petitioner further submits, regarding receipt of the cheque by the 1st respondent, he has filed Ext.P2 representation before the Police. Feeling aggrieved by the interference of the 1st respondent in the dispute between the WPC.NO.7465/2008 . 2 petitioner and the 2nd respondent, this writ petition is filed. 2. The 2nd respondent denies the allegations against him. He submits, he has not received any cheque from the 1st respondent. He claims that an amount of Rs.28,400/= is due from the petitioner to him. 3. The learned Government Pleader denies the allegation of harassment. It is submitted that both the parties filed petitions before the 1st respondent. He called both the parties and on finding that the dispute is a civil dispute, the parties were advised to approach the civil court. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the 1st respondent has no intention to harass the petitioner. The police is not supposed to interfere in a civil dispute of this nature. The parties have to resolve the dispute by approaching the competent civil court. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the 1st respondent has no intention to harass the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl WPC.NO.7465/2008 . 3