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 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 6742 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.K.NAGENDRAN, AGED 65, S/O.KUTTY VISHALA BHAVAN PALLURUTHY, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHIJU ALIAS KUNJU S/O.PEEYUS, VATTAKKATTUKUNNIL, PUTHENVELIKKARA. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALLURUTHY. ADV. SRIT.A.SHAIN FOR R1 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL - R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 6742/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 6742 OF 2008-C ----------------------------------------- Dated 14th October, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner availed a loan from State Bank of Hyderabad, by mortgaging the property belonging to the 1st respondent's father. The loan amount was equally shared by them. Both of them agreed to repay the amount equally. Though the petitioner was paying the amount promptly, the 1st respondent's father was not paying his share. Therefore, the Bank has taken action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). While so, on 19.2.2008, the 1st respondent came to the petitioner's residence. The petitioner alone was present in the house. He was abused, intimidated and threatened with dire consequences, for not clearing the entire loan amount. One of the miscreants slapped on the face of the petitioner. The miscreants also WPC 6742/2008 2 locked the house and took away the key, by keeping the petitioner out. Thereupon the petitioner informed the police about the said incident. But, no crime was registered. Later, he broke open the lock and re- entered the house. Thereafter, he filed Ext.P1 representation before the 2nd respondent C.I of Police, seeking protection to his life. But, the police did not extend any help. So, this writ petition is filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that he never went to the house of the petitioner as alleged. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the property of the 1st respondent's father was assigned in favour of the petitioner. He mortgaged that property and took a loan of Rs.7 lakhs. Out of the said amount, Rs.4 lakhs was taken by the petitioner and Rs.3 lakhs was given to the 1st respondent's father. Both of them did not repay any amount. So, the Bank has taken action to take possession of the property under the SARFAESI Act. Thereupon, the 1st respondent paid Rs.2.5 lakhs to the Bank and the petitioner did not pay any amount. The dispute between them is a civil dispute. So, the police have no WPC 6742/2008 3 intention to interfere in it. 3. Having regard to the disputed facts involved and also the allegations against the petitioner, we are not inclined to grant any relief to him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has to invoke the ordinary remedies available to him before the ordinary civil/criminal courts. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/