IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32175 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.A. ROY, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM, PULINCHUVATTIL HOUSE, VELLASSERY KARA, KADUTHURUTHY P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 604. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.NATESAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 604. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 604. 3. BINDU, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.JOHN, MELEDATH KUZHIPPIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE, AYAMKUDY P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 613. 4. PRSOBHA BINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O.BINDU, MELEDATH KUZHIPPIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE, AYAMKUDY P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 613. BY SR.G.P. SRI. T.P. SAJID THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVE COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 15.06.2011 STYLED AS A PROMISSORY NOTE SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF R3 & R4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE CL PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C).NO.32175 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 7th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Petitioner has filed this writ petition complaining that the second respondent Sub Inspector of police is intervening in a dispute between him and the 3rd respondent which according to him is purely civil in nature. This action of the second respondent, according to the petitioner, amounts to harassment. 2. On considering this writ petition for admission, we directed Sri. T.P. Sajid - Senior Government Pleader, who took notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 to seek instructions from respondents 1 and 2 as to the correctness of the accusations of harassment. Sri. Sajid submitted that accusations of police harassment are incorrect. The petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. One lakh from the third respondent. As the amount was not repaid in full on time, the third respondent filed a complaint before the second respondent accusing of having cheated her. The attendance of the petitioner was required by the second respondent only in connection with an enquiry into the above petition. Both W.P.(C).NO.32175 OF 2011 : 2 : sides appeared before the second respondent. Both of them endorsed in the petition register that the amount due to the 3rd respondent will be paid off by the petitioner. As the dispute is purely civil and monetary in nature, the second respondent does not intend to take any further action. We record all the submissions of Sri. Sajid. The only question which we are called upon to decide is whether the action of the second respondent in insisting upon the attendance of the petitioner in the police station can be branded as harassment. The above question in our opinion can be answered in the circumstances of the case only in the negative. We decline jurisdiction and dispose of the writ petition relegating respondents 3 and 4 to have their remedies for recovery of the amount due from the petitioner through process of the civil court. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl