IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6344 of 2010(P) ------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- R.MOHANAN, S/O.A.K.RAGHAVAN VARIATH HOUSE,PASUPPARA PO WAGAMON, PEERUMEDU. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.M.S.LETHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MULANTHURUTHI POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PIRAVOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM 3. K.S.RAJAN, S/O.SANKARAN KOLATTIL HOUSE, PONNURUNNI, POONITHURA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P.N. SUKUMARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 6344 OF 2010 P --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st March, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents herein and their subordinates not to harass the petitioner in any manner and not to compel the petitioner to execute the Sale Deed pertaining to his immovable property in favour of the 3rd respondent or any person claiming under him.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner owns and possesses five cents of land. It was agreed to be sold to the third respondent and he entered into Ext.P1 agreement. The third respondent was not willing to WPC. 6344 OF 2010 P 2 purchase the property. He started influencing the second respondent. Petitioner was taken to the Police Station. The second respondent shouted against the petitioner asking him to execute the sale deed. Petitioner was detained in the police station. It is stated that the second respondent obtained signatures in the Register kept in the police station and on some white papers and he was compelled to sign under the writings made by the Police Constable. Case of the petitioner is that the second respondent has no authority to interfere in the civil dispute. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Quite clearly, in respect of Ext.P1 agreement, if there is a breach committed by the petitioner, that is a question to be looked into by the civil court. The second respondent has no authority to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that respondents 1 and WPC. 6344 OF 2010 P 3 2 will not interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge