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. 16511 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- FAIZAL MEPPURATH, S/O. SIDHI, AGED 32 YEARS, MEPPURATH HOUSE, PUTHUPONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM-676505. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-676577. 3. SHAREEF, S/O. SIDHI, PAREECHINTAKATH, PUTHUPONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676577. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS R3 BY ADVS. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.16511 of 2011-L ***************************** Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining about harassment by the police. He seeks directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to put an end to his harassment. 2. According to the petitioner, he is employed abroad. The 3rd respondent was also employed abroad. There were some disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent about the manner in which the 3rd respondent allegedly managed the business of the petitioner and another. The 3rd respondent was repatriated back to India by the Arab who had sponsored him. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has now returned to his native place. The 3rd respondent is already in India and is making attempts to prevail upon the police to compel and coerce the petitioner to settle his monetary disputes. This may not be permitted. Appropriate directions may be issued, it is prayed. 3. The 3rd respondent has entered appearance through a counsel. The learned Government Pleader after taking W.P(C) No.16511 of 2011-L 2 instructions from respondents 1 and 2 submits that it is true that the 3rd respondent has filed a complaint before the police raising allegations against the petitioner. Police had called both parties to the police station. The police are now satisfied that no crime has been committed and it is not necessary for the police to intervene in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent regarding a transaction which took place abroad. Parties have hence been advised to settle the dispute by resort to the civil/legal process. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 2nd respondent categorically undertakes that the petitioner will not be proceeded against for any matter for which complaint has now been received. The petitioner's apprehension is thus bareless, it is submitted. 4. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are satisfied that the submission of the learned Government Pleader can be accepted and proceedings can be closed. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 prays for time to file counter affidavit. We are satisfied in the circumstances of the case that it is not necessary to adjourn the case further for such counter affidavit. We make it clear that rights, if any, of the 3rd respondent to take action against the 1st petitioner in accordance W.P(C) No.16511 of 2011-L 3 with law shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 5. Accepting the submission of the learned Government Pleader, this Writ petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/