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 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26511 of 2011(L) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ASHOK KUMAR.C.N., S/O.NARAYANAN, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VARANTHARAPILLY VILLAGE, KARAYAM PADAM DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR.-678003 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION.-686503 3. SHEEJAN, S/O.RADHA NARAYANAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, CHENGALOOR DESOM, THRISSUR.-686503 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.DHANESH MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26511 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1:- A COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE MAGISTRATE COURT -II AT IRINJALAKUDA IN C.C43/08 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.26511 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J Averments in the Writ Petition are to the effect that the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case instituted by the mother of the 3rd respondent, alleging offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is stated that the case was settled by payment of a sum of ` 30,000/-, even though the amount covered by the cheque in question was ` 1.5 lakhs. On the basis of the settlement, the complaint was withdrawn and the petitioner was acquitted by the court on 30/09/08. But the 2nd respondent summoned the petitioner on 14/09/11 to the station house on the basis of a complaint submitted by the 3rd respondent and threatened and coerced him to make entries in a book kept at the station, to the effect of committing that the petitioner owes money to the 3rd respondent and it will be paid to the 3rd respondent. It is W. P. C. No.26511 of 2011 -2- alleged that the petitioner was put to wait at the station house for about 2 hours and he was harassed and threatened at the instance of the 3rd respondent. It is further alleged that on 03/10/11 the petitioner was again telephoned by the 2nd respondent requesting him to appear on 05/10/10 and to execute documents in Stamp Paper acknowledging the debt. Being aggrieved by the illegal and highhanded actions on the part of the 2nd respondent, this Writ Petition is filed seeking direction to restrain such activities. 2. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration we directed the Government Pleader to ascertain from the 2nd respondent about veracity of the accusations. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions received from the 2nd respondent submitted that, a complaint was received from the 3rd respondent to the effect that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of ` 25,000/- from the petitioner in the year 2002 and the money has not been W. P. C. No.26511 of 2011 -3- returned yet. The said complaint was entertained in the Petition Register and both parties were summoned to the station on 14/09/11. It is further stated that on enquiry the petitioner had admitted about the borrowing and requested to permit him to return the money in installments. On the basis of the admissions, the matter was settled amicably and both parties have signed the statement written on the Petition Register kept at the station house. It is further mentioned that no harassment was caused to the petitioner as alleged and the endorsement in the Petition Register was made since no objection was raised by the petitioner in paying the amounts due to the 3rd respondent. 3. Considering the manner in which we propose to dispose of this Writ Petition, it is not necessary to issue notice the 3rd respondent. Hence, no notice was issued to the party respondent. 4. The stand taken by the 2nd respondent clearly reveals that the issue between the parties is a monetary dispute. We W. P. C. No.26511 of 2011 -4- are of the considered opinion that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the 2nd respondent ought not have entertained any such complaint and should not have summoned the petitioner on the basis of such a complaint. It is not a rule that the police should summon all the opposite parties in each and every complaints they receive. If it is clear that the dispute raised in a complaint does not reveal commission of a criminal offence or if it is evident that the issue does not relates to any breach of peace or violence or relating to any law and order problem in which the concerned police officer has no jurisdiction, the police officer should abstain from summoning the opposite party or from creating any document which may affect the civil rights of such parties. 5. In the instant case, even though it is evident that there is an irregular and highhanded action on the part of the 2nd respondent, we are not issuing any further directions because it is stated that no further action is intended in this matter from the side of the 2nd respondent. We make it clear W. P. C. No.26511 of 2011 -5- that notwithstanding any endorsement made in the Petition Register kept at the station house the petitioner will be entitled to dispute the alleged liability due to the 3rd respondent. 6. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to restrain from interfering in any manner with monetary dispute if any existing between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. 7. The Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the 1st respondent for taking note of the matter and for issuing proper directions to the concerned officials under his jurisdiction. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- W. P. C. No.26511 of 2011 -6-