IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 36667 of 2009(C) -------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.DEVARAJ, FOREST CONTRACTOR AND THE OWNER OF M/S.THIRUMURUGHAN SAW MILLS, S/O.PALANI SWAMI, NO.I, OOTHUKULI ROAD, MELAPALAYAM, CHENNIMALAI, ERODE, PIN-638051, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SMT.AYSHA RAHMAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. CHATHU, TIMBER MERCHANT, KOTTOLLATHIL HOUSE, KADAMERI POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. M/S.PUSH PACK WOOD WORKS, KAYAPPANCHI, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA. 3. M/S.NEW STAR TIMBERS, THANNEERPANDAL, KATAMERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA. 4. M/S.MAYUR WOOD INDUSTRIES, MOORIYAD POST, CHALAPPURAM, CALICUT-673 002. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R1 SRI.C.JAYACHANDRAN FOR R1 SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R2,4 R5 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.36667 OF 2009 C PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY SRI. P. DIVAKARAN, ADVOCATE, VATAKARA TO THE PETITIONER ON 14.9.2009. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DT. 25.9.2009. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER'S NOTICE DT. 28.11.2009 TO M/S. MAYUR WOOD INDUSTRIES. EXT.P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER'S NOTICE DT. 28.11.2009 TO M/S. NEW STAR WOOD WORKS. EXT.P3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER'S NOTICE DATED 28.11.2009 TO MS/ PUSH PACK WOOD WORKS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 36667 OF 2009 C --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th April, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court alleging harassment by the respondents, in the matter of civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4, pursuant to Exts.P1 to Ext.P3 (a) and P3(b). 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner has supplied timber logs to respondents 1 to 4. Petitioner has not yet received the entire amount due from them. There is an arrear of Rs.7,38,737/=. It is stated that the first respondent is having the sole responsibility to make the payment of arrears. It is also submitted that respondents 2 and 3 are duty bound to send C Forms to the petitioner for the timber logs received by them from the petitioner. There is reference to Exts.P1 and P2 lawyer notices. While so, it is stated that the WPC.36667/2009C 2 petitioner received phone calls and there is harassment by the fifth respondent, Sub Inspector of Police. A Counter Affidavits filed by respondents 1 and 3 to which a Reply Affidavit also is filed. 3. We heard the learned counsel appearing including the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and 2 and 4 would submit that the petitioner has cheated them. They would further point out that they had approached the learned Magistrate who has ordered investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C. According to them, due to the intervention of this Court, the investigation ordered by the Magistrate is not being completed. Learned Government Pleader also would submit that the Magistrate has passed an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. He would further submit that crime is not registered in view of the orders passed by this Court. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, in view of the order passed by the Magistrate, we do not WPC.36667/2009C 3 think it appropriate for the Writ Court to hold up further action by the police in the matter. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: Respondents 5 and 6 will be free to proceed in accordance with law, pursuant to the direction of the Magistrate, to complete the investigation in the matter. We further make it clear that it is open to the petitioner, if so advised, to challenge the proceedings of the Magistrate before the appropriate forum. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge