IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 26466 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- G.SASSI, S/O. GANGADHARAN VAYDIAR, AGED 71 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. COMMANDER AGENCIES PVT. LTD., VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PRAMODKUMAR, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKOOTTAM CIRLCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. INDIRA SADANANDAN, NEW KRISHNA THEATRE,KAZHAKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. KISHORE, S/O. INDIRA SADANANDAN, NEW KRISHNA THEATRE, KAZHAKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI SALIM P.A. FOR R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.)& SRI.S.SHARAN FOR R4 & 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.26466/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLIANT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 29.8.08. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE QUOTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17.3.08. EXT.R4(B): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15.5.08 FOR RS.1 LAKH, ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(c): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15.5.08 FOR RS.50,000/- ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(D): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 26.5.08 FOR RS.39,000/-, ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(E): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 3.6.08 FOR RS.10,000/- ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(F): TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 18.6.08 FOR RS.64,000/- ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(G): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 29.7.06 FOR RS.1 LAKH ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(H): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.7.08 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R4(I): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.9.08 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R4(J): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AA/LT/35/2008-09 DATED 2.6.08 ISSUED BY HITACHI AGENCIES TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(K): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.6.08 ISSUED BY SANJOSE INDUSTRIES TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(L): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.7.08 ISSUED BY SANJOSE INDUSTRIES TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(M): TRUE COPY OF the FIR NO.296/08 DATED 1.9.08 BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKOOTTAM. EXT.R4(N): TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVERS TOGETHER WITH POSTAL ENDORSEMENTS. EXT.R4(O): TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.26466 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is a contractor who does the work of interior decoration. The 4th respondent is the owner of a cinema theatre. She entrusted the work of interior decoration of her theatre to the petitioner. During the course of execution of that work, the 4th respondent directed him to do some additional work. But she has not made any additional payments for those works. Therefore, dispute arose between them. While so, the 4th respondent moved the 3rd respondent who is the local Circle Inspector of Police. He summoned the petitioner to the police station and started threatening and harassing the petitioner at the instance of the 4th respondent. So, he filed Exhibit P1 petition before the Director General of Police, praying to issue appropriate direction to the C.I. of Police, Kazhaoottam and thereafter this Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the W.P.(C)No.26466/08 -2- respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith curb the police harassment meted out on the petitioner by the 3rd respondent mis-utilising his official position as Circle Inspector of Police by interfering in the exclusive civil dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. (ii) declare that the 3rd respondent has no manner of right to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent.” 2. The Circle Inspector of Police, Kazhakottam has filed a statement, which reads as follows: “ It is respectfully submitted that the 4th respondent has submitted a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kazhakuttom alleging that the petitioner, after receiving an amount of Rs.3,64,000/- failed to execute the work of interior and acoustic works of her theatre. On the complaint the petitioner was summoned to the police station and he agreed to complete the work within a month. Since he has not able to fulfill the promise, he may be under the mistaken impression, that he may be booked. On a further complaint, Crime No.296/08 under Section 420, 427 and 34 IPC was registered and investigation is going on. (2). It is submitted that I have not harassed the petitioner and I have no intention to do so. Allegations W.P.(C)No.26466/08 -3- raised against me is totally false and is cooked up to avoid further investigation.” 3. The 4th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner entered into Exhibit R4(a) contract with her for doing the interior decoration work. Payments were to be made according to the stages of completion of the work. It is evident from Exhibits R4(b) to R4(e), about 90% of the amount due under the contract was released to the petitioner. But he has not executed any work. Upon enquiry, it was found that the petitioner is in the habit of cheating all his customers and the same he has repeated in this case also. So, the 4th respondent was constrained to move the police. 4. The petitioner denied the allegations made against him in the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and therefore the registration of the crime itself is a harassment from the part of the police. 5. We think, it is not proper for this Court to express any opinion regarding the merits of the criminal case registered against the petitioner. All the contentions of both sides are kept open. The Sub W.P.(C)No.26466/08 -4- Inspector of Police shall complete the investigation of the case in accordance with law without being influenced by either side or superior police officers. We record the submission of the Circle Inspector of Police that he has no intention to harass the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn