IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18185 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SARACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.JANARDHANAN NAIR, T.C.7/1379, SRI SAILAM VEEDU VEETTAMUKKU, THIRUMALA P.O., SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SARASU KURIAKOSE, NO.78, VRINDAVAN COLONY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.18185/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: DATED 30/6/2011 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO. 1 RSPONDENTS EXHIBITS; EXT.R3(A): COPY OF SALE DEED NO.2266/1989 DATED 29/6/1989 EXECUTED BY KFC. EXT.R3(B): COPY OF COMMON ORDER IN IA NO.5037/09 DATED 13/10/2010 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDUM. EXT.R3(C): COPY OF ORDER IN CMA NO.1/10 DATED 16/3/2010 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.R3(D): COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER ON 29/6/2009. EXTR3(E); COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 9/12/2009. EXT.R3(F): COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 307/10. EXT.R3(G); COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 24/2/2011 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE. EXT.R3(H): COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 27/6/2011 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 18185 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner has approached this court complaining what is described as harassment by the 2nd respondent in relation to a matter, which is a pure civil dispute and is pending before this court as W.P.(C) No.13035/2010. The petitioner alleges in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that he, who was away, came to India on 23/6/2011 and on 29/6/2011 his attendance at the police station was demanded at the instance of the 3rd respondent with whom a civil dispute exists. The 2nd respondent instructed his subordinates to prepare a statement in the register maintained at the police station to the effect that the petitioner will not interfere with the peaceful possession of the property by the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, though he refused to sign the statement, on account of threat and coercion from the 2nd respondent ultimately the petitioner became compelled to subscribe his signature to the above WPC.No.18185/2011 2 prepared statement. The petitioner apprehends that there will be similar harassment in future and also that the statement, which is now taken from him, will be used against him in the on going civil proceedings. 2. On instructions from the 2nd respondent, Smt.S.Charisma the learned Government Pleader submitted that the accusations levelled against the police in the writ petition are without any basis. On receiving the complaint from the 3rd respondent against the petitioner, the petitioner was invited to the police station in connection with the enquiry into the complaint. On coming to know that civil dispute is pending between the parties in respect of the properties, both the parties were advised to abide by the decision of the civil court. The entries in the register of the police station, which is endorsed by the petitioner as well as by the 3rd respondent, was signed by them on their own in acknowledgment of their having agreed to abide by the decision of the civil court. 3. Sri.Martin, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the writ petition is an abuse of process of law. According to him, the intention of the petitioner in moving this WPC.No.18185/2011 3 court in the present jurisdiction is to dissuade the police from entertaining the complaints which the 3rd respondent will be obliged to file frequently against the petitioner, who is indulging in all sorts of illegal activities. The learned counsel submitted that, it is through goondas including the petitioner's own driver, that the illegal activities are perpetrated by the petitioner and the police has already registered Crime No.307/2010 against the driver of the petitioner. According to Mr.Martin, the intention of the petitioner is to defeat the investigation into that crime in which the petitioner is likely to arrayed as co accused. The learned Government Pleader at this juncture submits that final report is submitted in the above case and charge sheet is lodged against the driver of the petitioner. 4. Having considered the submissions addressed before us, by Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Martin and Smt.C.M.Charisma, we are of the view that the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is essentially a civil dispute, which is presently pending before this court in the form of the writ petition (W.P.(C) No.13035/2010) arising from O.S. No.1137/2009 of the IInd Additional Munsiff WPC.No.18185/2011 4 Court, Thiruvananthapuram. As for the specific grievance voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition regarding compelling him to subscribe his signature to the prepared statement, the explanation that was given to this court by the learned Government Pleader is convincing. It was submitted also by Mr.Martin that the above statement or entries in the Register is not going to be utilised in the pending civil proceedings between the parties. We record the above submission. 5. Coming to the grievance voiced by the 3rd respondent through her counsel, we are of the view that the 2nd respondent should keep vigil over the property, which is subject matter of the dispute between the parties, and ensure that no law and order situation arises and immediate action should be taken if it is revealed that there is threat to anybody else's lives or properties. It is ordered accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk