IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15892 of 2011(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SAJEEV.S.D. ALIAS THAMPAN, S/O.DAYANANDA BABU, AGED 45 YEARS, SANTHA VILASAM, PATTANAKKADU.P.O.,WARD NO.6, PATTANAKKADU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SASEENDRAN, S/O.PARAMESWRAN, EDAPPARAMBIL, WARD NO.2, CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 688 545. 2. ABDUL SALAM, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. PIN-688 545. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 545. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM. 682 018. R1 BY ADV. SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.15892/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 18.12.2008 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND IST RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 14.5.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 11.6.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD. 31.12.2010 BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE , PATTANAKKADU. R1(b):- COPY OF THE REMINDER PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DTD. 8.6.2011. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE rss PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- WP(C) No.15892 of 2011-J -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this, the 5th day of July 2011 Judgment Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner has approached this court, invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, complaining that at the instance of the first respondent, respondents 2 to 4 i.e, the Circle Inspector of Police, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Inspector General of Police respectively, are harassing him. It is alleged that respondents 2 and 3 compelled the petitioner to execute Ext.P1 agreement in favour of the first respondent. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already approached the fourth respondent Inspector General of Police, raising his grievances against respondents 2 and 3. The prayers in this Writ Petition are the following : WP(C) 15892/2011 2 1) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the second respondent and his police men and his subordinates not to harass the petitioner unnecessarily in connection with a dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent. 2) Direct the fourth respondent to conduct an enquiry on the basis of Ext.P3 representation by conducting a specific enquiry regarding the location of mobile phone of the petitioner. 3) Direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 complaint submitted by the petitioner. While admitting this Writ Petition, this court passed the following order on 14.06.2011: “Heard. Admitted. Notice given and the learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 3 and 4. Issue notice to respondents 3 and 4. Issue notice to respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is accordingly permitted to take out notice to respondent No.1 by special messenger. 2. We are not now ordering notice to the 2nd respondent. The question of issue of notice to the 2nd respondent shall be considered after hearing the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. Verify service and call again on 20.06.2011.” Thereafter, on 20.06.2011, on completion of service and after hearing the first respondent also, this court passed WP(C) 15892/2011 3 the following order : “Service is complete. Respondent No.1 has entered appearance. The learned Government Pleader also prays for time to take detailed instructions. Time is granted. Call on 24.06.2011. There shall be an interim direction that in the meantime, if no crime is registered against him, the police shall issue a notice in accordance with law to the petitioner, if his presence were required at the police station.” Later, on 27.06.2011, the following order was passed by this court : “The learned Government Pleader again prays for time to take further instructions. The learned Government Pleader submits that time is sought to ascertain the number of the crime registered against the petitioner and the details thereof. Time granted as requested. Call on 05.07.2011.” 2. Today, the learned Government Pleader Smt.Charisma, on instructions from respondents 2 and 3, submitted before us that on the basis of a complaint (petition) received from the first respondent regarding a dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent over two Indica cars, the petitioner as well as the first WP(C) 15892/2011 4 respondent were summoned to the Cherthala Police Station on 10.06.2011. On that day, both the petitioner and the first respondent expressed their willingness to settle all their issues amicably. On noticing the above stand of the petitioner and the first respondent, the police advised them to settle the disputes themselves and that if they are unable to settle the issues amicably, to approach the competent court. In that manner, the petition pending before the police was closed. According to the learned Government Pleader, the Police Officers have not harassed the petitioner, nor have they imposed Ext.P1 or for that purpose, any document upon the petitioner against his will. 3. Smt.Dhanya.P.Asokan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would practically endorse the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. WP(C) 15892/2011 5 4. Sri.Abdul Rahiman, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police officials compelled his client to subscribe his signatures to certain blank stamp papers and the petitioner apprehends that those stamp papers will be utilised for fabricating documents and that may be prevented. 5. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that it is not necessary to grant any of the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that as far as the police officials are concerned, the petition received against the petitioner from the first respondent has been closed. We also record the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the police officials have no intention to harass the petitioner on the basis of the disputes with the first respondent over the two Indica cars or any other civil disputes between the parties. We further record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that no crime is registered against the WP(C) 15892/2011 6 petitioner in any police station within the jurisdiction of the third respondent. Hence, we dispose of the Writ Petition, declining to grant the reliefs sought for. However, we make it clear that in case any objectionable document or for that matter any document, which according to the first respondent was, not knowingly or willingly, executed by him in favour of the first respondent, is relied on by the first respondent in any proceedings before any court, it is open to the petitioner to challenge that document either in the same proceedings or by initiating separate proceedings in that regard. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WP(C) 15892/2011 7