IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18624 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYAPALAN.P.V., AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. VELU, NEDUMANNIL VEEDU, MU8LIYANNOOR KARA MURI, KUTTAPPZUAH.P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT PPOLICE COMPLAINT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLAA-689101. 4. SHYNI ABRAHAM, KARAKKAT PUTHEN VEETTIL, KALLISSERY.P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689121. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.VIPIN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.18624/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 27/12/2010 EXT.P2: COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 7/7/2011. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 18624 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the 3rd respondent, the Circle Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla, not to harass the petitioner and his family members. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 agreement for sale was executed by him for the sale of his properties to 4th respondent Shyni Abraham. He claims that contract failed due to fault on the part of the 4th respondent. The third respondent, at the instance of the 4th respondent, is now compelling him to execute sale deed in favour of 4th respondent on the basis of Ext.P1. This is a pure civil dispute and the 3rd respondent is actually trying to settle the issue in favour of the 4th respondent illegally. This amounts to harassment. 2. Sri.Vipin Das, learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions received from the 3rd respondent submitted that on receiving a petition from Sri.C.Mathew, husband of the WPC.No.18624/2011 2 4th respondent complaining that Ext.P1 sale agreement is violated by the petitioner, the police summoned the petitioner to try for settlement of the issue. But, the petitioner never turned up. As the allegation in Ext.P2 complaint was that the petitioner cheated the 4th respondent and her husband, the police registered the crime No.975/2011 on the basis of the petition. The crime is registered under Sections 406 and 428 of IPC . The crime is being investigated into and there is no harassment from the part of the 3rd respondent, so submitted the learned Government Pleader. 3. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.R.Santhosh Babu apart from those of Sri.Vipin Das, learned Government Pleader. According to Mr.Santhosh Babu, the allegations in the writ petition are cent percent correct and there is warrant for issuance of directions sought for. The learned Government Pleader reiterated the submissions already made by him on instructions. 4. Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, we do not think that any case is made out by the petitioner for issuance of directions to respondents 2 and 3 as WPC.No.18624/2011 3 prayed for. However, we caution respondents 2 and 3 against enforcing Ext.P1 agreement in favour of either the petitioner or 4th respondent through their process. The relief sought for is declined. However, there will be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 that they shall not attempt to enforce Ext.P1 in favour of either party through police process. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk