IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 21604 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JACOB DAIRISH, S/O. JACOB, AGED 30, KUNNUGATHARA HOUSE, MARADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SAJI KUMAR, S/O. VISWANATHA PANICKER, THURUTHIYIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPERUR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O. VISWANATHA PANICKER, THURUTHIYIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPERUR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. ANIL KUMAR, C/O.VISWANATHA PANICKER, THURUTHIYIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPERUR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. VISWANATHA PANICKER, THURUTHIYIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPERUR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE FOR R3 TO R6 SMT.K.V.LEKSHMY FOR R3 TO R6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. SALIM.P.A. FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.21604/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4324/2007 IN TRIPUNITHURA SRO EXECUTED BY 6TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AFTER RECEIVING THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SALE DEE NO.1221/2007 IN TRIPUNITHURA SRO SHOWN AS BASE DOCUMENT OF EXT.P1. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS DT.15.7.2008. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R3 TO 6(1): COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DT.13.6.2007. EXT.R3 TO 6(2): COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4324/07 OF SRO, TRIPUNITHURA. EXT.R3 TO 6(3): COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.10.09.2007. EXT.R3 TO 6(4): COPY OF THE CHEQUE BEARING NO.606730 DT.20.10.2007. EXT.R3 TO 6(5): COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DT.22.10.2007. EXT.R3 TO 6(6): COPIES OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE VIJAYAKUMARA MENON HOSPITAL, TRIPUNITHURA WITH RESPECT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3 TO 6(7): OPIES OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE VIJAYAKUMARA MENON HOSPITAL, TRIPUNITHURA WITH RESPECT TO THE WIFE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3 TO 6(8): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MANGALAM DAILY DT.8.12.2007. EXT.R3 TO 6(9): COPY OF THE CHEQUE RETURN MEMO DT.18.2.2008. EXT.R3 TO 6(10): COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DT.7.3.2008. EXT.R3 TO 6(11): COPY OF THE REPLY LAWYER NOTICE DT.15.3.2008. EXT.R3 TO 6(12): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT UNDER SEC.138 OF THE N.I.ACT BEFORE THE ACJM COURT, ERNAKULAM. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21604 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this Court, alleging that respondents 3 to 6 are threatening them with physical harm. He is apprehending danger to his life from them. There are some disputes between him and the said respondents concerning the payment of consideration of a property purchased by him. Now the matter is pending before the competent court, it is submitted. 2. The respondents 3 to 6 have filed a counter affidavit denying the averments and contentions of the petitioner. They have also stated that they have no intention to physically harm the petitioner. They propose to take recourse to the remedies available under law to redress their grievance. W.P.(C) No.21604/2008 2 3. The police have filed a statement in which it is submitted that the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.53 lakhs towards balance consideration to the 6th respondent. The same bounced. They also submitted that there is no law and order problem warranting any protection to the life of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner denies the above statement of the police and submits that he has paid the entire amount due to the 6th respondent and the cheque given in advance was not returned and using that cheque the 6th respondent is demanding money from him. We record the submission of respondents 3 to 6 that they have no intention to physically harm the petitioner and dispose of the writ petition, without prejudice to the contentions of both sides. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps