IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20704 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.MURALEEDHARA PAI,AGED 46,S/O.LATE M.ACHUTHA PAI,1X/768-A, KEMPIRI ROAD, KOCHI 682 002,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS : --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY SECRETARY DEPT.OF HOME AFFAIRS,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COCHIN CITY,ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MATTANCHERRY. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATTANCHERRY. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MATTANCHERY. 6. A.VASUDEVA SHENOY,S/O.LATE ANANTHA SHENOY, VIII/1220 C,SOUTH CHERLAI,COCHIN 682 002. 7. NAVEEN.P.D,S/O.DAMODARA PRABHU, PRABHU NIVAS,KANDAKADAVU,KANNAMALI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R.BINDU ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY FOR R6,7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20704 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATTANCHERRY. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.06.2011 IN M.C.NO.969/2011 BEFORE THE SESSIONSCOURT, ERNAKULAM SEEKING ANTICIPATORY BAIL. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL FILED AS CRL.M.C.NO.1025/2011 ON THE FILES OF SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 16.07.2011 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO RESPONDENT NOS.3, 4 AND 5. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT.R6(a): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R6(b): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** W.P(c) No.20704 of 2011-K ***************************** Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 2 to 5 – all police officials under the 1st respondent State, to afford protection to the petitioner against culpable, violent and contumacious conduct on the part of respondents 6 and 7. 2. According to the petitioner, he is proficient in accountancy. The 6th respondent has been availing of the services of the petitioner. The petitioner has rendered services for the 6th respondent. At his instance, he has also taken part in some business transactions. Between the 6th and 7th respondents, there were certain transactions. The petitioner had also played his role in bringing about such transactions. Amounts appear to be due from the 7th respondent to the 6th respondent. The 6th and 7th respondents are acting in collusion. Instead of settling their claims among themselves, they are unnecessarily involving the petitioner in their transactions and W.P(c) No.20704 of 2011-K 2 disputes. According to the petitioner, he owes no amount to the 6th respondent and/or 7th respondent. But they are indulging in continuous threats and intimidation. They initially attempted to file complaints before the police and prevailed upon the police to vex and harass the petitioner and compel him to pay amounts to the 6th respondent. This they did after the petitioner fled a complaint before the police. According to the petitioner, police were initially acting in collusion with respondents 6 and 7 and were prevailing upon the petitioner to settle the dispute by payment of money. The petitioner is not willing to do the same as according to the petitioner, he does not owe any amounts to respondent No.6 and/or respondent No.7. When the police started intimidating and threatening the petitioner, the petitioner was thrice obliged to go to the courts seeking anticipatory bail. On all such occasions, the petitioner was informed that there is no crime registered against the petitioner and the petitioner's presence is not required by the police. 3. Realising that their attempt to coerce the petitioner by use of the police machinery is not working, now the 6th and 7th respondents have employed goondas and muscle men to threaten W.P(c) No.20704 of 2011-K 3 and intimidate the petitioner. The petitioner complained to the police about such threats, but the police is not taking any action. It is, in these circumstances, according to the petitioner, that the petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of appropriate directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to afford protection to the petitioner. 4. The 6th and 7th respondents have entered appearance through a counsel. They have a totally different story to narrate. According to them, the petitioner, while he was trusted by the 6th respondent and was entrusted with the responsibility of carrying on the business of the 6th respondent and his wife, who are illiterate persons, had indulged in culpable criminal conduct of misappropriation of funds. According to the 6th respondent, an amount of about Rs.15 lakhs is due from the petitioner to the 6th respondent. The petitioner is attempting to avoid such payment. The 6th respondent has filed a complaint before the police. The petitioner is intimidating and threatening the police by running to courts with unjustified prayers. The present attempt of the petitioner is only a part of the scheme to intimidate and threaten the police and to coerce them to inaction and submission. His W.P(c) No.20704 of 2011-K 4 plan appears to have worked. According to the 6th respondent, the police is not taking any proper action against the petitioner, because of such complaints/proceedings initiated by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the 6th and 7th respondents submits that the 6th and 7th respondents have no intention to threaten or intimidate or cause any harm to the petitioner. They have a grievance that the petitioner has committed criminal offences. They want law to take its own course. They want the petitioner to brought to book for his culpable conduct. The learned counsel for the 6th and 7th respondents unambiguously undertakes before Court on behalf of the 6th and 7th respondents that they shall not indulge in any contumacious or culpable conduct against the petitioner. The attempt of the petitioner is to steal a march over the 6th and 7th respondents and threaten the police to submission and inaction. It may be made clear that the police is bound to investigate the complaints filed by the 6th and 7th respondents. The petitioner may not, in these circumstances, be permitted to arm himself with any orders of police protection, submits the learned counsel for the 6th and 7th W.P(c) No.20704 of 2011-K 5 respondents. 6. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that it is true that complaints have been received against the petitioner from the 6th and 7th respondents. The complaints of the petitioner have also been received by the police. According to the police, they are not satisfied that the petitioner has committed any criminal offence. In these circumstances, the police have not registered a crime against the petitioner and have not initiated any action against the petitioner. In the perception of the police officials, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. If there be any such threat, the petitioner can complain and appropriate and necessary action in accordance with law shall be initiated by the police, it is submitted. 7. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the police officials/respondents 2 to 5 that no crime has been registered against the petitioner and the police have no intention to register any crime on the basis of complaints filed by respondents 6 and 7. If there be any valid W.P(c) No.20704 of 2011-K 6 complaint of commission of any crime by the petitioner, the police shall register an F.I.R in accordance with law and then only take action against the petitioner. The petitioner shall not be called to the police station and if his presence is necessary, an order/notice/summons in writing shall be issued to him, undertakes the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 2 to 5. 8. We make it clear that the course available under law to respondents 6 and 7 against the police for not registering a crime against the petitioner shall remain unfettered by this judgment. If they have any grievance, they shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner shall not be called to the police station unless his presence is required and in that event, proper notice in accordance with law shall be issued to the petitioner. We accept the undertaking of the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 that they shall not indulge in any contumacious or culpable conduct against the petitioner. If any genuine complaint exists, either party can complain to the police and the police must W.P(c) No.20704 of 2011-K 7 certainly take appropriate action in accordance with law. We are satisfied that no further or specific directions need be issued in favour of either the petitioner or respondents 6 and 7 by this Court at this juncture. 9. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/