IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38724 of 2010(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RAJU,S/O.LONAPPAN,AYNIKKAL HOUSE, LOURDUPURAM,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR 680 001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATIION, THRISSUR 680 005. 3. SUJA,W/O.LAZAR,KANDANADAN HOUSE, MUDIKKODE,D/O.RAMANKUTTY,VENNAPPALLY HOUSE, KARUMALLUR PO,MANAYAKAPPADY DESOM, KARUMALLUR VIA, NORTH PARAVUR,ERNAKULAM 683 511. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.38724/2010 M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 22/12/2010 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No. 38724 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this court seeking the issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondent No.2 to deter him from harassing the petitioner at the instance of the 3rd respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, there was a relationship between him and the third respondent, a woman. They had contemplated the marriage also. But it was realised that the third respondent is already married and has children in that wed lock. In these circumstances, it is not possible for the petitioner to marry the third respondent. Third respondent is very influential and she had prevailed upon the second respondent. Both were called to the police station by the second respondent. Signatures of the petitioners were obtained in the records of the police station. On the strength of that, third respondent now claims that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is due to her and the second respondent is trying to oblige the third respondent by wpc 38724/2010 2 extracting the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is not willing to pay the amount as he is not liable to pay the amount. Police may not be permitted to take law into their hands and compel and coerce the petitioner to comply with the illegal demand of Rs.3,00,000/- by the third respondent. 3. This petition was admitted and notice was issued to the respondents. The third respondent has not been served yet. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions from respondents 1 and 2 submits that these allegations raised by the petitioner are totally incorrect and false. It is true that a complaint was received from the third respondent by the police. No crime was registered and it was registered as a petition. Both parties were called to the police station and parties did settle their disputes harmoniously and amicably. Their agreement was recorded at the police station in the petition register and the same was closed. But the petitioner is now unwilling to comply with the stipulations made between the parties. He wants to wriggle out of the obligations of such settlement. The police is not interested in the enforcement of the monetary claim. But it is wpc 38724/2010 3 true that the petitioner and third respondent had entered into an agreement and that agreement was reported to the police. The police shall not take any steps to coerce or compel the petitioner to make payment of the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which he had agreed earlier. It is up to the third respondent to take necessary steps to recover the amount. 4. The learned Government Pleader however submits that a crime has subsequently been registered against the petitioner as Crime No.32 of 2011 on the basis of the complaint of third respondent. That complaint will have to be investigated properly and in accordance with law. The steps taken by the police for proper investigation in that crime cannot be described or reckoned as acts of harassment or vexation. Except the steps which are liable to be taken in accordance with law for the due investigation of Crime No.32 of 2011, the police shall not indulge in any conduct against the petitioner herein, submits and undertakes the learned Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's anxiety is only against the illegal attempts to compel the petitioner to make payment. He shall take necessary steps in wpc 38724/2010 4 Crime No. 32 of 2011 to seek bail or anticipatory bail from appropriate courts. He shall co-operate with the investigators in Crime No.32 of 2011. But the police may be deterred from making attempts to enforce the alleged liability of the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the 4th respondent, submits the counsel. This, in short, is the prayer of the petitioner. 6. We agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that police have no right or authority to resolve the civil disputes between the parties and enforce the agreements between parties. For that, appropriate proceedings will have to be initiated before courts. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that police officials shall not take any steps to compel the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- though he had allegedly agreed to pay such amounts at the police station. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that accepting the submissions of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, this petition can now be closed. No further specific directions need be issued in the matter. 7. We record that we have accepted the submission of the wpc 38724/2010 5 learned Government Pleader that respondents 1 and 2 shall not, in any way, insist on compliance with payment of the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by the petitioner to 4th respondent. Accepting the said submission, this petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) lgk