IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1097 of 2010(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- SHAJIL KUMAR, S/O.SHANMUGHAN, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHETTIPARAMBIL, VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI – 19. BY ADV. MR.M.K.ABOOBACKER. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANANGAD. 2. THRESSIA, D/O.VACKO, AMBATTU HOUSE, VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI – 19. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR. R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 1097 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Raman, J. The petitioner has come to this Court alleging police harassment and seeking appropriate direction. 2. According to him, an extent of 2.02 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.1021/2 of Poonithura Village and the building thereon were purchased by him from the 2nd respondent by paying an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards consideration. Sale deed was also executed by the 2nd respondent. Besides the said amount, an amount of Rs.70,200/- was spent by the petitioner towards stamp duty. But, subsequently, the 2nd respondent did not shift her residence and requested the petitioner to allow her to reside in the building till alternate arrangement was being made. Accordingly, she was permitted to continue occupation on a rental arrangement between the parties. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has become the absolute owner of W.P.(C) No. 1097/2010 2 the property. 3. It is also contended that the 2nd respondent has a foster son Vincent and, subsequently, in an after thought and at the instance of her foster son, the 2nd respondent changed her mind and unnecessary allegations were raised. The 1st respondent summoned the petitioner to the police station. The petitioner duly appeared. According to him, it is alleged that the 1st respondent insisted the petitioner to return the property to the 2nd respondent to which the petitioner agreed on condition that the entire consideration along the stamp duties is returned to him. Though two months' time was sought for return of the amount by the 2nd respondent, the condition is not complied with by the 2nd respondent. But subsequently again he was summoned to appear before the police station. This is the sum and substance of the complaint raised in this writ petition. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent, on instructions, submits that earlier the petitioner was summoned to the police station on a complaint made by daughter-in-law of the 2nd respondent . Agreement between the parties was recorded and it was not W.P.(C) No. 1097/2010 3 at the insistence of the 1st respondent. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent made another complaint, after the agreement, stating that what was received by her was only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and not Rs.4,00,000/- as stated by the petitioner. When a complaint was received again, the 1st respondent summoned the petitioner to the police station. It is also stated that if the parties are not willing to abide by the agreement then, they were advised to approach the court and police has no intention to interfere in the matter. The same is recorded. 5. On the said facts and circumstances and in view of the stand taken by the 1st respondent as stated above, we do not think that there is anything survives for further consideration. Hence, the writ petition is closed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. mn.