IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33940 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.S.JOY, S/O.DEVASSY, KARUMATTI HOUSE, VADAKUMBAGAM KARA MANJAPPA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY (LAW AND ORDER), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ANGAMALY. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ANGAMALY. 4. UNNI, S/O.NARAYANAN, KOSHANAYI HOUSE, THURAVUR KARA, THURAVUR VILLAGE, NEAR ANGAMALY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADDL. RESPONDENT: 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALWAYE. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R5 AS PER ORDER DT.21.11.08 IN IA 14849/08) ADV. SRI.K.S.MOHAMED HASHIM FOR R4 SRI.V.M.SAJAN FOR R4 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL – R1 TO R3 & R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 33940/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - A TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 4TH RESPONDENT DATD 6.12.2007. EXT.P2 - A TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DATED 31.10.2008. EXT.P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALWAYE DATED 18.11.2008. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.33940 OF 2008-M ----------------------------------------- Dated 5th December, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner entered into an agreement for sale of a property with the 4th respondent and received Rs.16 lakhs as advance towards the sale consideration. As per the agreement, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1, the petitioner submits, the 4th respondent should have paid the balance consideration and got the sale deed executed before 31.1.2008. But, the said respondent failed to perform his part of the contract, though the petitioner was always ready and willing to do whatever he should do under the agreement. Therefore, the petitioner caused to issue Ext.P2 lawyer notice, terminating the agreement and forfeiting the amount paid as advance. Soon thereafter, the 2nd and 3rd respondents started calling him, to compel him to settle the matter with the 4th respondent. Since the petitioner did not agree to that, police WPC 33940/2008 2 constables are being sent to his residence every day, to ask him to appear before respondents 2 and 3. He has also been called through his mobile phone and strictly directed to appear before the said respondents. The petitioner apprehends, respondents 2 and 3 propose to compel him to execute a fresh agreement with the 4th respondent. In the above background, this Writ Petition was filed, seeking reliefs against the harassment from the part of respondents 2 and 3. 2. The 3rd respondent has filed a statement, in which it is submitted that on the basis of petition No.886/PTN/08/Angamaly Police Station, a constable was deputed to summon the petitioner. But, he was not available in his rented house. So. his mobile phone number was collected and he was informed to appear before the police. But, he did not turn up. Later, crime No.1808/08 was registered under Section 324 read with 34 of the I.P.C against the petitioner on 27.11.2008. The police deny the allegations of harassment against him. 3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that though he was ready and willing to perform his part under Ext.P1 agreement, the petitioner did not come forward to execute the WPC 33940/2008 3 sale deed. On 30.10.2008, he personally approached the petitioner for repayment of the advance amount paid by him. On the next day night, when he was proceeding to his house after closing his shop, the petitioner beat him using an iron rod on his head and caused injury and he was hospitalised. Based on the information given by the police, a crime has been registered against the petitioner. Unfounded allegations are made by the petitioner to wriggle out of the liability to pay Rs.16 lakhs to him. It is also submitted that he has already moved the civil court for recovery of the said amount. 4. Now that a crime has been registered against the petitioner, he will have to be arrested and questioned. If any action is taken by the police for the same, the same cannot be described as harassment from the part of the police. But, against his apprehended arrest and other grievances, the petitioner has remedies under law. So, he may work out the remedies available to him under law before the competent civil/criminal court, as the case may be. But, the police shall not interfere in the civil dispute concerning breach of Ext.P1 agreement. Subject to this observation and without prejudice to the petitioner's WPC 33940/2008 4 rights to move other forums for appropriate reliefs, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Nm/