IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 16872 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ B.CHANDRAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, SHIVAGIRI ESTATE, THIRUNELLI P.O., THIRUNELLI VILLAGE, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KALPATTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANANTHAVADY, OFFICE OF CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANANTHAVADY. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUNELLI POLICE STATION, THIRUNELLI. 5. DEEPTHI JOY, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.C.J.JOY, CHEERAMKUZHI HOUSE, GONIKOPPAL, DHANUGALA P.O., DHANUGALA VILLAGE, VIRAJPETTA TALUK, SOUTH COORG, KARNATAKA. 6. ROSAMMA JOY, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.C.J.JOY, CHEERAMKUZHI HOUSE, GONIKOPPAL, DHANUGALA P.O., DHANUGALA VILLAGE, VIRAJPETTA TALUK, SOUTH COORG, KARNATAKA. WP(C).No. 16872 of 2008(H) 2 7. C.J.JOY, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, CHEERAMKUZHI HOUSE, GONIKOPPAL, DHANUGALA P.O., DHANUGALA VILLAGE, VIRAJPETTA TALUK, SOUTH COORG, KARNATAKA. 8. SMT.MINI SEBASTIAN, W/O.SEBASTIAN THOMAS, PORIYATH HOUSE, IRITTI P.O., PAYANCHERRY DESOM, KIZHOOR AMSOM, TELLICHERRY TALUK. 9. TOMY M.MATHEW, S/O.M.MATHEW, MANUKUTHEL HOUSE, IRITTI P.O., PAYANCHERRY DESOM, KIZHOOR AMSOM, TELLICHERRY. 10. MRS.BIJI JOSEPH, W/O.TOMY M MATHEW, MANUKUTHEL HOUSE, IRITTI P.O., PAYANCHERRY DESOM, KIZHOOR AMSOM, TELLICHERRY. 11. DENNIS JOY, S/O.C.J.JOY, CHEERAMKUZHI HOUSE, GONIKOPPAL, DHANUGALA VILLAGE, DHANUGALA P.O. 12. MARY JAMES, W/O.JAMES, KOLLARATH HOUSE, MURINGODI DESOM, MELMURINGODI P.O., MANATHARA AMSOM, THALACHERRY TALUK. 13. ALEXANDER JAMES, S/O.JAMES, KOLLARATH HOUSE, MURINGODI DESOM, MELMURINGODI P.O., MANATHARA AMSOM, THALACHERRY TALUK. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO R4 ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL FOR R5TO 13 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.16872/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 31.8.06 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETIITONER AND THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION O.A.NO.25608/2008/WD FILED BEFORE THE KERALA STATE FARMERS DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JFCM-I, MANANTHAVADY. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.5.08 IN W.P.(C) No.14906/08. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.16872 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that he is being harassed by respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner submits, he and his mother availed a loan from the 7th respondent and as a security for the same, they have executed certain sale deeds in favour of the party respondents. Now a dispute arose between the petitioner and the 7th respondent, because the said respondent has failed to re-convey the property covered by those sale deeds even though the petitioner and his mother were ready to clear the loan amount. Now, at the instance of the 7th respondent, police are interfering in this civil dispute, it is submitted. In fact, the 7th respondent was permitted to take the usufructs only and the petitioner and his mother retained their possession over the properties. Now, the police officers are telephoning them and asking them to vacate from the properties, it is alleged. 2. The party respondents have filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations of the petitioner. According to them, the W.P.(C)No.16872/08 -2- petitioner and his mother have transferred the property in favour of them after receiving valid consideration. The properties were mutated in favour of the respective assignees and they are in possession of the properties ever since the execution of the agreement for sale, it is submitted. 3. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that the police is only investigating the crime registered against the petitioner. They have no intention whatsoever to interfere in the civil dispute. The police specifically submitted, they have not asked the petitioner and his mother to vacate from the property stated to be in their possession and they do not intend to do that also. 4. The dispute between the parties have to be settled by the appropriate civil court. We record the above submission made on behalf of the police and close the writ petition. It is made clear that the powers of the police to investigate into the crime already registered will not be affected by this judgment. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn