IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16372 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.ANIYAN KUNJU, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. LATE GEORGE, RESIDING AT KANAVIL VILLA, KANNANAKUZHI P.O., CHARUMOODU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.K.S.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA STATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA. 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION. 7. N.SOMAN NAIR, USHAS, VETTIKKOTTUMURI, KATTANAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 680169. 8. K.N.RADHAMANIYAMMA, W/O. N.SOMAN NAIR, USHAS, VETTIKKOTTUMURI, KATTANAM, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPIN DAS R7 TO R8 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16372 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 25/01/2010. P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A. NO. 2511 OF 2011. P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE smvd R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.16372 of 2011-V ***************************** Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining about harassment by the police. Respondents 2 to 6 are police officials under the 1st respondent State of Kerala. It is the case of the petitioner that at the instance of respondents 7 and 8, with whom the petitioner has a property dispute, respondents 2 to 6 are unnecessarily harassing the petitioner. 2. Notice was ordered to the respondents. Respondents 7 and 8 have entered appearance through a counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file counter affidavit. Respondents 1 to 6 are represented by the learned Government Pleader. We have heard the learned Government Pleader. We are of opinion that it is not necessary to wait any longer for the counter affidavit of respondents 7 and 8. 3. According to respondents 7 and 8, the petitioner is a person with a shady past. He had advertised in the newspapers and had offered an item of immovable property for sale. An amount of Rs.15 lakhs in two instalments has been paid towards W.P(C) No.16372 of 2011-V 2 the sale consideration. A further amount of Rs.10 lakhs alone remains to be paid towards the sale consideration. It is now revealed that there are litigations in respect of the property proposed to be sold and the petitioner had suppressed information about the pendency of such litigation. In these circumstances, respondents 7 and 8 have filed a complaint before the police. Police do not feel that any crime is to be registered on that complaint. It appears to the police to be a civil dispute only. At any rate, parties were called to the police station. They had agreed to explore the possibility of a harmonious settlement. The police do not want in any manner to harass the petitioner. The police shall not intervene in the civil dispute between the parties. It is for the parties to seek appropriate relief from the civil court in respect of the civil dispute between them. To a pointed query by this Court, the learned Government Pleader submits that at the moment and on the basis of the complaint presently received, police do not intend to register any crime. Presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted by the police hereafter on the basis of any complaint received so far, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8 submits W.P(C) No.16372 of 2011-V 3 that as a matter of fact allegations reveal commission of a crime, respondents 7 and 8 do not accept the stand of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 6 that the complaint does not reveal any crime. 5. We have considered all the relevant aspects. This petition is only against the alleged harassment by the police. In the light of the categoric submission of the learned Government Pleader that according to the police, the dispute is purely a civil dispute between the parties and that the police shall not intervene in the civil dispute, we do not think that any further direction need be issued. We may hasten to observe that the right of respondents 7 and 8 to raise a contention before the appropriate forum that the police are guilty of inaction and that a crime must be registered shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this petition. 6. In the result: a) We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that no crime is registered against the petitioner and the petitioner's presence shall not be insisted at the police station in connection with the disputes between the petitioner and respondents 7 and 8; W.P(C) No.16372 of 2011-V 4 b) This Writ Petition is dismissed; c) We clarify that rights of respondents 7 and 8 to complain to the authorities concerned of inaction by the police (non registration of crime) shall not be fettered by the dismissal of this Writ Petition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/