IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17534 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANOJ P.VARGHESE, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, OSHO VILLA, KONGINIPARAMBIL, KADAPRA MURI, KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 688 001. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 689 121. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 689 121. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 689 121. 6. AMBILY, W/O.P.R.SOORAJ, AMBILY SADANAM, MELPADAM MURI, MANNAR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 689 622. 7. P.R.SOORAJ, AMBILY SADANAM, MELPADAM MURI, MANNAR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 689 622. ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R6 & 7 SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL FOR R6 & 7 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA FOR R1 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 6-2-2011 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINTSUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20-6-2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R6(A) TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 4-2-2011 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER'S EXT.R6(B) TRUE COPY OF CHEQUE DATED 31-8-2011 (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 17534 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Abdul Rehim, J. The petitioner is running an advertising agency at Chengannur and is also working as a news reporter for 'Kerala Kaumudi' daily. The 6th respondent was working as an accountant in the petitioner's advertising agency. The 7th respondent, who is the husband of 6th respondent is a police constable working in the office of the 3rd respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, the 6th respondent committed some manipulations in the accounts of the agency business and caused loss to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.6 lakhs. On account of such alleged misappropriation she was not permitted to continue in the employment. It is the complaint of the petitioner that on the basis of the undue influence exerted by respondents 6 and 7, the 3rd respondent obtained a signed blank stamp WP(C).17534/11 -2- paper as well as a signed cheque from the petitioner, under threat and coercion. The 3rd respondent is now making threat against the petitioner compelling him for payment of a huge amounts and gold ornaments to the 6th respondent, otherwise, it is threatened that the petitioner will be implicated in criminal case and will be put to jail. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has no manner of right to intervene in the dispute between the petitioner and the 6th respondent, and the action taken in this regard by the 3rd respondent is highly arbitrary and high handed. Hence the petitioner is seeking directions to restrain the 3rd respondent from causing any harassment to the petitioner and his family members. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 6 and 7, it is contended, that the petitioner had pledged gold ornaments belonging to the 6th respondent and obtained huge amounts. In spite of repeated demands made, the WP(C).17534/11 -3- petitioner is not taking steps to get the ornaments released and in fact, the petitioner was cheating the 6th respondent. The allegation of misappropriation was totally denied. It is admitted that a complaint was filed by the 6th respondent before the 3rd respondent narrating the entire history of cheating committed by the petitioner. However, it is stated that, after conducting a preliminary enquiry the 3rd respondent has closed the complaint when the petitioner had issued a post dated cheque in discharge of the liability. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, on the basis of instructions received from 3rd respondent, submitted that, a complaint has been received from the 6th respondent to the effect that while working as accountant in the petitioner's establishment, the petitioner had taken the gold ornaments of the 6th respondent and pledged the same. In spite of repeated demands the ornaments were not returned and WP(C).17534/11 -4- with respect to the cheating committed in this regard a complaint was received from the 6th respondent. It is further stated that the petitioner had issued a cheque towards repayment of the amounts due to the 6th respondent, with respect to the ornaments pledged. The allegation that the stamp paper as well as the cheque was obtained by threat and duress is denied by the third respondent. It is further stated that the third respondent is not intending to interfere with the dispute between the parties and that the petitioner is not required to be summoned for any purpose in connection with the said dispute. We record the submissions made on behalf of the third respondent. Since it is stated that the petitioner is not required to be summoned to the police station for any purpose, we are of the opinion that there is no need for issuing any specific directions. It is left open to the WP(C).17534/11 -5- petitioner to raise complaint before the higher officials, if there is any further threat or alleged harassment from the side of the 3rd respondent. It is also made clear that the parties will be at liberty to work out remedies with respect to the dispute by approaching competent courts. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-