IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20804 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SAJITH KUMAR K.B, AGED 42 S/O. BHASKARAN, KARANAMKOTTU HOUSE MULLASSERY P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SRI.JOHN VIPIN SMT.S.A.SHERLY SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THRISSUR. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE GURUVAYOOR. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PAVARATTI POLICE STATION, PAVARATTI,THRISSUR 5. K.N.SHIBHU, S/O. NARAYANAN KONDAPPASSERY, MULLASSERY P.O. CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. 6. SOSAMMA DHARMARATNAM W/O. DHARMARATNAM, KANDAYANGATH, MANALOOR P.O.,THRISSUR. 7. SAJINI, W/O. SIVARAMAN KONDARATHUVALAPPIL, THEKKUMURI, NANNAMUKKU, PONNANI. WPC 20804/08 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF FOR R7 SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R6 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 20804/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 6.10.2007. EXT.P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 24.10.2007. EXT.P3 - A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE KURI REGISTERED AT FARIDABAD. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R6(a) – TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DED DATED 28.10.1998. EXT.R6(b) – TRUE COPY OF THE RETIREMENT DEED DATED 28.12.1999. EXT.R6(c) – TRUE COPY OF THE RETIREMENT DEED DATED 22.12.2000. EXT.R7(1) – TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT DATED 28.6.2008. EXT.R7(2) – TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT DATED 25.6.2008. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 20804 OF 2008-B ----------------------------------------- Dated 18th July, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this Court, complaining harassment of him by the 3rd respondent C.I of Police, Guruvayur. The petitioner submits, he is running a furniture shop. In the year 1997, the 5th respondent, who was a friend of him, started a chitty business. In that business, the petitioner was persuaded to make a deposit of Rs.25,000/-, on the promise of paying reasonable interest. The 5th respondent registered the chitty from Faridabad and he was running the business. When the business was facing financial difficulties, the said respondent went abroad in 2007. As requested by him, the petitioner assisted the 6th respondent, who is the mother-in-law of the 5th respondent, to manage the business. For some time, the petitioner submits, he and his wife attended the office of the said financial institution. The petitioner along with respondents 5 and 6 arranged some amounts to pay to the subscribers. While so, the petitioner's sister Sobhana filed a WPC 20804/08 2 complaint before the police, claiming that the amount deposited by her is not being repaid to her. Thereupon, the police started harassing him. The petitioner submits, he is in no way responsible for the liability of the above said business establishment, which was doing chitty business. But, the 3rd respondent C.I of Police under threat and coercion, compelled him to execute an agreement, agreeing to pay the amounts due to various subscribers. In view of the above harassment from the part of the police, this writ petition is filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the petitioner was one of the partners of the firm, which was running the chitty and about 600 complaints were received in the Police Station against the firm and its partners. Since the complainants said that they are more interested in getting the money back than prosecuting the partners of the firm, the police tried to settle the matter. The petitioner voluntarily entered into an agreement, agreeing to pay some subscribers every second Saturday, so that, in due course, the entire liabilities are cleared. When the second Saturday of this month was approaching, he filed this Writ Petition, feigning ignorance about the fact that he is a partner of the firm, it is submitted. 3. The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, denying the WPC 20804/08 3 allegations of the petitioner and has produced documents to show that the petitioner was the third partner of the partnership firm, managing the chitty business. It is also submitted that as evident from the pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner and his wife were managing the chitty business recently. The 7th respondent submitted that Rs.45,000/- is due to her and her daughter. Since the petitioner did not pay the amount, she moved the police and the police interfered in the matter only to save him, it is submitted. 4. Having regard to the facts of the case, we find nothing wrong with the steps taken by the police to amicably settle the disputes between the parties. As rightly pointed out by the 7th respondent, it was for bailing out the petitioner from the difficult situation faced by him. If the petitioner is not interested in going by the agreement and he disowns it, the police may take appropriate action in accordance with law. Though the police cannot interfere in a civil dispute, if the commissions and omissions of the petitioner disclose any cognizable offence, the police can take action against him. We, prima facie, find that there is no harassment from the part of the police, as alleged by the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the actions of the police or the party respondents, he can work out the remedies available to him under law. In that event the court concerned can deal with WPC 20804/08 4 the matter, uninfluenced by the views expressed by us in this judgment. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/