IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1797 of 2011(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.POLINSYS IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED, OPP.TO BSNL BHAVAN, KALATHIPRAMBU ROAD, KOCHI-16,REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JOY STEPHEN. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM -1. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF POLICE OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, NEAR HIGH COURT COMPLEX, KOCHI -18. 4. CHEMMANUR ACADEMY AND SYSTEMS PVT. LIMITED 2ND FLOOR, DD MILESTONE, KADAVANTHRA KOCHI -20, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR, ANISHA CHERIAN. BY G.P. SMT. CHERISHMA ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1) FOR R-4 SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN FOR R-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF IMMIGRATION CONSULTANT BEARING REG. NO.M.041877 ISSUED BY THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE PROTECTOR GENERAL OF IMMIGRANTS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 9/6/06. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT DATED 24TH AUGUST 2009 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 22/11/10 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14/1/11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH HIS SENIOR MANAGER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 1797 of 2011-Y ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining about harassment by the police officials at the instance of the 4th respondent who is alleged to be very influential. 2. According to the petitioner, there is a contract between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. There has allegedly been breaches by the 4th respondent in complying with the terms of the said agreement This had obliged the petitioner to direct stop payment of the three cheques issued by the petitioner to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent had initiated proceedings under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. To the notice of demand, a proper and effective reply was allegedly given and no steps were thereafter pursued under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act. W.P.(C) No. 1797 of 2011 -: 2 :- Realizing the futility of proceeding under law against the petitioner, the 4th respondent is now prevailing upon the 3rd respondent to harass and vex the petitioner in an attempt to somehow settle the dispute with the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, he is not liable to settle the dispute. He is entitled to stand on his rights and assert that he is not willing to succumb to the illegal demands of the 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent is unnecessarily poking his nose in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to deter the 3rd respondent - a police official, from vexing and harassing the petitioner to oblige the 4th respondent. 3. This petition was admitted. The 4th respondent has entered appearance through a counsel. The learned Government Pleader has entered appearance for respondents 1 to 3. Interim directions were issued on 28/1/11. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that it is absolutely incorrect to say that the 4th respondent has prevailed upon any police official to vex or harass the petitioner. Prosecution for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act has already W.P.(C) No. 1797 of 2011 -: 3 :- been initiated in accordance with law by the 4th respondent against the petitioner and other officials of the company. A complaint has been lodged as early as on 10/1/11 alleging commission of the offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.420 IPC against the petitioner, its office bearers and employees. The 4th respondent will be satisfied if action in accordance with law is taken on his complaint. 5. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions from respondents 1 to 3, submits that it is true that a complaint dated 10/1/11 was lodged before the Commissioner of Police by the 4th respondent. That was forwarded to the 3rd respondent by the Commissioner of Police. A crime has been registered on 29/1/11 as Crime No.223/11 of Kadavanthara Police Station, inter alia, under Sec.420 IPC. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner, who perhaps has come to know of the complaint received by the police against him, is trying to preempt the issue by raising the bogie of police harassment. It is true that the 3rd respondent, on receipt of the complaint forwarded to him, had attempted to ascertain whether parties can harmoniously settle their disputes. But it is absolutely incorrect to say that there was any vexation or harassment emanating from the 3rd respondent against the petitioner. W.P.(C) No. 1797 of 2011 -: 4 :- 6. The learned Government Pleader submits that inasmuch as a crime has been registered, investigation will now take place only in compliance with law. There shall be no attempt to vex or harass the petitioner. The crime having been registered, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek bail or anticipatory bail from appropriate courts. The police will not intervene in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. If the parties do not want, the police will not make any attempt to persuade them to settle their disputes also. But certainly action in accordance with law will have to be pursued for the due investigation of Crime No.223/11 of Kadavanthara Police Station. By filing this petition the petitioner cannot aspire to succeed in his attempt to thwart legal steps which have to be initiated against him in the investigation of that crime. There shall be no vexation or harassment against the petitioner. But certainly action in accordance with law shall be taken, submits the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. 7. This petition was filed on 18/1/11 and the same was admitted on 19/1/11. We note that admittedly crime was registered on 29/1/11, though the complaint is dated 10/1/11. We need not go into all those questions now. Suffice it to say that the police is bound to investigate into the crime. Steps W.P.(C) No. 1797 of 2011 -: 5 :- taken for the proper investigation of the crime in accordance with law cannot be dubbed as vexation or harassment and the petitioner cannot aspire to avoid due process of law by filing a petition for protection. The petitioner must seek his remedy of bail/ anticipatory bail from the courts concerned or he must surrender before the police. All legal steps are available to the petitioner to challenge the registration of the FIR etc. But as the FIR has been registered, police is bound to investigate and the petitioner must co-operate in the investigation. We are satisfied that no specific directions need, in these circumstances, be issued. We record the submissions of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3. 8. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge