IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 5058 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.O.ANTO, KALLARAKKAL GOLD SUPER MARKET, DOOR NO.XXVIII/323-A, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKUDY. 3. SHAJU SEBASTIAN, CHIRAYATH JEWELLERY, CHALAKKUDY.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. (PRESIDENT, KERALA GOLD AND SILVER DEALERS' ASSOCIATION, CHALAKUDY). 4. K.K.TISSERANT, SWAPNA JEWELLERY, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (SECRETARY, KERALA GOLD AND SILVER DEALERS' ASSOCIATION, CHALAKUDY) MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5058 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains of inaction on the part of respondents 1 & 2 on Exts.P4 & P5 complaints made by him. 2. The petitioner is a gold merchant. According to the petitioner, he has announced 6% discount in the manufacturing charges, and this has provoked respondents 3 & 4, who are the President and Secretary of the Kerala Gold and Silver Dealers' Association, Chalakkudy. It is stated that in order to wreak vengeance on the petitioner, they have displayed notices in the shops of their members, announcing that gold ornaments purchased from the petitioner's shop will not be purchased by them. It was thereupon that the petitioner has filed Exts.P4 & P5 complaints before respondents 1 & 2 requesting that action should be initiated against respondents 3 & 4. 3. In my view, a reading of Exts.P4 & P5 do not disclose commission of any offence much less any cognizable one. The learned counsel for the petitioner complains that the action of WP(C) No.5058/2009 -2- respondents 3 & 4 amounts to nuisance and therefore is an offence under the Kerala Police Act. In my view, if, according to the petitioner once a complaint has been made, and if there is inaction on the part of the police authorities, remedy of the petitioner is not to approach this Court and seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to register crime, but he has to approach the Magistrate and initiate proceedings as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg