IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 14262 of 2008(W) PETITIONER : P.APPU NAIR,S/O.KUTTIKRISHNAN NAIR, PAROOR HOUSE,PULLUR,TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH RESPONDENTS: 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. MOHAMMEDKUTTY @ BAVA,S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, KALLUMTHURUTHI,KANTHALLOOR PARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLUR TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R3 BY ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SALIM P.A. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ. ................................................................................... W.P.(C.) No. 14262 OF 2008 ................................................................................... Dated this the 22nd July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioner has approached this court alleging that the second respondent is harassing him at the instance of the third respondent. He is being unnecessarily summoned by the police and he has been directed to execute some documents in favour of the third respondent, it is contended. 2. Learned Government Pleader, upon instruction, submitted that the petitioner and the third respondent were partners in real estate business . It is submitted that the said respondent has purchased some property in the name of the petitioner and that when he wanted to dispose of those properties, the petitioner did not oblige by executing necessary sale deeds. Therefore he filed a complaint before the second respondent . The matter was enquired into by the police and on finding that it is a civil dispute, it was closed, it is submitted. It is further submitted that later the third respondent filed a complaint before the police stating that while he was standing in front of a tea shop, he was wrongly restrained and threatened by the petitioner and based on that information, the police has registered a crime against the petitioner. 3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations levelled against him. According to him, it is a civil dispute and that he has not moved the police to settle the issue between them. 4. We record the submission of the second respondent that the said officer or W.P.(C.) No. 14262 OF 2008 2 other police officers under his jurisdiction have no intention to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent. Placing on record the submission made by the second respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk