IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6084 of 2011(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUNJUMON, S/O.ALI, KOOLAPPILLIL NAZARTH HOUSE, KANALKARA, ALUVA ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA. 3. JOLLY, W/O.JOHNSON, THEKKANATH VEEDU, MADAVANPURAM, ALUVA. R1 TO R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER: SMT. CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SM WPC NO.6084 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 04.12.2010 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL SM TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.6084 of 2011-I ***************************** Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner has come to this Court complaining about police harassment by the 2nd respondent at the instance of the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent had raised allegations against the petitioner. Police had called both parties to the police station. The petitioner was compelled to execute a document under threat and coercion agreeing to pay money to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is really not liable to pay any amount to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is influential. She is attempting to get the said agreement enforced by prevailing upon the 2nd respondent police official. The 2nd respondent is vexing and harassing the petitioner to compel him to comply with the said settlement and pay amounts to the 3rd respondent. Appropriate directions may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution to abate such harassment/vexation on the part of the 2nd respondent, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner. W.P(C) No.6084 of 2011-I 2 2. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that while it is true that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent had a dispute and had settled that dispute after they were called to the police station, it is incorrect to say that the petitioner was compelled and coerced to come to any settlement. It is equally incorrect to say that the 2nd respondent is vexing and harassing the petitioner to comply with the terms of the said settlement. The 2nd respondent has no intention of intervening in the settled dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent shall not in any way vex or harass the petitioner to compel him to comply with his agreement with the 3rd respondent, submits and undertakes the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 2nd respondent. If the parties have a grievance about non compliance of their agreement, they must go to the civil court or seek enforcement of that agreement in accordance with law, submits the learned Government Pleader. 3. We record the submissions of the 2nd respondent. We accept those submissions. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no further specific directions are necessary in this Writ Petition. W.P(C) No.6084 of 2011-I 3 4. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, allowed to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/