IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30872 of 2010(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- UMESH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, VALAMPULICKAL, THANNERMUKKOM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688001. 3. RATHEESH KUMAR, PRAVEEN NIVAS, VARANADU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688543. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.30872 of 2010-H ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Ist and 2nd respondents not to force the petitioner to pay any amount to the 3rd respondent. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding Ist and 2nd respondents not to harass the petitioner in connection with the complaint submitted by the 3rd respondent.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: About two months back, the rear glass of the 3rd respondent's car was allegedly damaged by pelting stones. He seems to have lodged a complaint with the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent is engaged in abkari business and illegal sand minding. Since the petitioner took the lead in mobilising public opinion against the illegal sand mining and taking steps to prevent such illegal activities, the sand mafia WPC No.30872/2010 -2- was looking for an opportunity to trap the petitioner. Though the petitioner did not have any role in the incident his name was dragged. In fact, at the time of the alleged incident he was with his pregnant wife who is admitted in a hospital. Ext.P1 is the discharge summary of the petitioner's wife. According to t he petitioner, on 17.8.2010 he was summoned to the police station. It is stated that he went to the police station and tried to convince about his innocence. But, the 2nd respondent took a stand that the petitioner had role in the incident and he should reimburse the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 would show that the petitioner was with his wife from 12.8.2010 to 17.8.2010. Petitioner was allowed to go with a condition that he would report the police station on the next day with money. The 2nd respondent threatened the petitioner to frame him in the incident unless he agrees to give money to the 3rd respondent. Ultimately the petitioner was forced to sign on a blank paper and he was allowed to go by the 2nd respondent. Since the petitioner was in no way responsible for the alleged damage to the car, he did not pay the amount. In the Ist week of WPC No.30872/2010 -3- October, the 2nd respondent sent a constable to the petitioner directing him to pay the amount. As the poor petitioner was unable to comply with the illegal demand the 2nd respondent by frequently sending police constable to his house began to harass and force the petitioner to pay the amount. Petitioner filed Ext.P2 complaint before the Ist respondent on 14.9.2010. Petitioner appeared before the Ist respondent and the 3rd respondent was also there. But, instead of looking into the grievance of the petitioner he sided with the 3rd respondent. The Ist respondent also reiterated the threat of implication in the case and asked the petitioner to report the payment before the 2nd respondent at the earliest. Now, the petitioner is under threat of being taken into custody and being forced to pay the amount. 3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions submits as follows: Petitioner was involved in throwing stones and damaging the car. Petitioner has agreed to compensate the 3rd respondent. But he has backed down. The learned Government Pleader would submit that no crime has been registered as of now and in case 3rd respondent insists on WPC No.30872/2010 -4- proceeding with the complaint crime may be registered and proceedings taken in accordance with law. 4. Learned Government Pleader would submit that Ist and 2nd respondents will not force the petitioner to pay any amount to the 3rd respondent. We record the above submission and direct that respondents 1 and 2 shall not force the petitioner to pay any amount to the 3rd respondent. We, however, leave it free to respondents 1 and 2 if they are so advised to register a crime in the matter and proceed the same in accordance with law without harassing the petitioner. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS