IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21035 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SRI.A.GANESAN, S/O.LATE ARUMUGHA SWAMY, AGED 26 YEARS, LUCKAM NEW DIVISION, VAGUVURAI ESTATE, CHATTAMUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE SRI.ROY THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARAYOOR POLICE STATION, MARAYOOR IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. HARUN RAWTHER, CHATTAMUNNAR TOP, CHATTAMUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA FOR R4 SRI.M.R.RAJESH FOR R4 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 21035/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - A PHOTO COPY OF APPLICATION OBTAINED FROM THE PETITIONER BY THE COMPANY DATED 1.10.2006. EXT.P2 - A PHOTO COPY OF RECEIPT OF FEE ISSUED BY THE YGK CONSULTING IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 - A PHOTO COPY OF ASSURANCE LETTER ISSUED BY YGK CONSULTING IN THE MATTER OF VISA. EXT.P4 - A PHOTO COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE DATED 22.4.2008 SENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER INSTRUCTION OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 - A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 1.7.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R4(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(b) – TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.6.2008. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 21035 OF 2008-D ----------------------------------------- Dated 4th August, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this Court, alleging that the 3rd respondent is harassing him, at the instance of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent's sons are associated with a recruiting agency for recruiting persons for employment abroad, which is stationed in Tamil Nadu. The said respondent's sons M/s. Ajmal and Fathulla have received an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- from the petitioner, promising an employment visa for him. It was the 4th respondent, who introduced the petitioner to those persons running the recruiting agency. Now, he has been cheated by those persons. He has neither been provided with the employment visa nor the amount paid by him for the said purpose has been returned. While so, on the basis of some complaint filed by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent is calling the petitioner and his family members to the Police Station and compelling them to pay Rs.35,000/- to the 4th respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the high- WPC 21035/2008 2 handed action of the 3rd respondent, this writ petition is filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the 4th respondent has filed a petition before the 3rd respondent, stating that he has taken a building belonging to the petitioner on rent. An amount of Rs.35,000/- was paid as security towards the rent. Though the building was surrendered, the petitioner has not returned the money. Therefore, the 4th respondent requested the 3rd respondent's intervention for repayment of the said amount. Based on that petition, the petitioner was summoned to the Police Station and he agreed to pay the amount to the 4th respondent. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that thereafter, the 3rd respondent has not called the petitioner to the Police Station. The said respondent has no intention whatsoever, to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. 3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that an amount of Rs.35,000/- is due from the petitioner, which was given by WPC 21035/2008 3 way of deposit, when he took a shop room belonging to the petitioner on rent. Even after the surrender of that room, the said amount is not being repaid. In the above background, he happened to file the aforementioned petition before the 3rd respondent. 4. It is not proper for the police to interfere in the civil dispute between the parties. We dispose of the writ petition, recording the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the 3rd respondent has no intention to harass the petitioner. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/