IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 WP(C).No. 33907 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- T.K.VALSALA, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.M.S.JAYARAJ, R/A.J.V.COTTAGE, KATTACHALKUZHI P.O.,KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR SMT.NEEMA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM DIST, PIN-695501 3. L.RAJAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.LOUIS NADAR,NELLIVILA, THOTTATHUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695501 BY G.P.SRI. SHYSON P. MANGUZHA FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD 25/4/2011 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C).NO.33907 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The complaint of the petitioner is that at the instance of the 3rd respondent, who is a party to Ext.P1 agreement, the 2nd respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Balaramapuram is harassing her. On considering this writ petition for admission, we directed the State Attorney, who took notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent, to seek instructions from that respondent. State Attorney has not been able to obtain instructions so far. 2. Smt. Neema Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is a clear case of police intervention in pure civil dispute. According to her, on the terms of Ext.P1, the petitioner is bound to reconvey the property mentioned in Ext.P1 only if the 3rd respondent pays a sum of Rs.2 lakhs mentioned therein. Third respondent is yet to pay the amount, but he is insisting with the assistance of the police that the petitioner should reconvey the property immediately. W.P.(C).NO.33907 OF 2011 : 2 : 3. Having considered the submissions, we are inclined to dispose of this writ petition issuing the following directions: The second respondent is informed and directed that he is not authorized to intervene in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent over Ext.P1. If either party is aggrieved about fulfillment or non fulfillment of the reciprocal commitments in Ext.P1, it is for that party to move the competent civil court for appropriate relief. The writ petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl