IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 28TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 15611 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.A.SULAIMAN,S/O.LATE KUNJALI, AGED 77 YEARS,CHIRAYIKKAT HOUSE, S.VAZHAKKULAM PO,ALUVA 683 105. BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKAR SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNADU,PATTIMATTOM,ERNAKULAM 683 562. 2. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLI,ADVOCATE,R/AT NEW ROAD, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR PO,COCHIN-33. ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R2 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX TO WPC NO.15611 OF 2011 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 136 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT PERUMBAVOOR. EXT.P2: COPY OF AD INTERIM ORDER DATED 31/5/2011 IN I.A.957/11 IN OS 136/2011. EXT.P3: CERTIFIED COPY OF VAKALATHNAMA FILED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS AND OTHERS IN O.S.128/1980 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 29/10/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/12/2010. EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.L.P.NO.15221/2007 EXT.R2(c): TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED. // True Copy// PA to Judge R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.15611 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19 day of September 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J The nature of controversy raised in this writ petition is indeed unfortunate. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining about the alleged police harassment meted out to him by the 1st respondent, a police official, at the instance of the second respondent, an Advocate. 2. According to the petitioner, the second respondent was his lawyer. He had engaged the second respondent in a civil proceedings and in the execution proceedings which followed. According to the petitioner, while the second respondent held his engagement as a lawyer, he was defrauded to execute a document conveying his property to the second respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that he had no intention to transfer any property to the second respondent; but he was compelled and defrauded to do the same. 3. The petitioner alleged that the second respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner with the sole W.P.C.No.15611 of 2011 2 intention of vexing and harassing the petitioner. A civil litigation has been launched. A police complaint was also filed. Making use of his influence with the police, the second respondent was attempting to vex, harass and intimidate the petitioner. The 1st respondent was obliging the second respondent. It is, in these circumstances and with these allegations that the petitioner came to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure that he is not vexed and harassed by the 1st respondent at the instance of the influential second respondent. 4. The allegations did appear to us to be serious. We ordered notice to the respondents. 5. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance now. He has a totally different version to advance. According to the second respondent, it is true that he was professionally engaged by the petitioner in proceedings pending before subordinate courts. The relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was more than what arose out of a mere professional engagement. It is the case of the second respondent, though disputed by the petitioner, that the petitioner and the second W.P.C.No.15611 of 2011 3 respondent share other intimate personal relationships. 6. Be that as it may, the second respondent admits that he had taken assignment of an item of property from the petitioner, admittedly a client who had engaged him professionally. But, it is the case of the second respondent that he had purchased an item of property from the petitioner only to oblige him in his hour of need. They were otherwise related and according to the second respondent, it is only after giving up the engagement on 29/10/2010 that he proceeded to purchase the property on 30/10/2010. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the second respondent was aware that he should not take assignment of a property from a client and it is hence that the assignment was taken by him only after the professional relationship was brought to termination. 7. According to the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent had filed a civil suit against the petitioner and had obtained an interim order of injunction. There allegedly was attempt to violate the interim order of injunction of the civil court and this had obliged the second respondent to raise a complaint before the 1st respondent. There W.P.C.No.15611 of 2011 4 was no element of any vexation or harassment. There was no question of the second respondent prevailing upon the 1st respondent to harass the petitioner. 8. We did feel that this is a matter where parties must be given an opportunity to settle their disputes amicably. The parties did make attempts as is evident now. But the fact remains that the parties have not been able to settle their disputes. According to the second respondent, he has done everything possible to settle the disputes. The civil case has been withdrawn. The 2nd respondent does not want to make any complaint before the police now. However, the parties have not finally settled the areas of disagreement between them. The petitioner raises a grievance that the property has not been re- conveyed to the petitioner as was allegedly agreed upon. This alleged agreement is stoutly denied by the 2nd respondent. 9. Such a dispute between a client and the lawyer is certainly unfortunate. We do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the disputes between them. We need only observe that such a dispute between a member of the noble profession of law and his client must have been avoided, at any rate. W.P.C.No.15611 of 2011 5 10. Coming back to the specific prayer in this petition, the request is that harassment may be stopped and there may be no interference by the police in the civil disputes between the parties. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that there is no civil suit pending now, the same having already been withdrawn. He further submits that the second respondent is not looking up to the police for any assistance in the civil disputes between the parties. The civil case having already been withdrawn, there is no room for any complaint that the civil courts order is not being obeyed or followed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the 2nd respondent does not seek any relief against the petitioner from the civil court or from the police. 11. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions from the 1st respondent, submits that the police have no intention to interfere in the civil disputes between the parties. As a measure of maintenance of law and order when there was a complaint that the order of the civil court has been violated, the petitioner was requested to explain why the order has been violated. The police have no intention to take any action against the petitioner, in any manner, submits the learned Government W.P.C.No.15611 of 2011 6 Pleader. No crime has been registered against him. His presence is not required at the police station and if there be any necessity in future, proper notice in writings shall be issued to the petitioner before his presence is demanded at the police station. 12. We accept these submissions. We are satisfied that no specific directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India deserves to be issued. 13. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. We make it clear that we have not intended to express any opinion on merits about the disputes between parties except that such a dispute between a member of the noble profession of law and his client should have been avoided. We make it clear that the option of the petitioner to approach appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievance shall not in any way be fettered by the dismissal of this petition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.15611 of 2011 7 W.P.C.No.15611 of 2011 8 W.P.C.No.15611 of 2011 9 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010