IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7727 of 2011(M) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SML FINANCE LTD,(NBFC REGISTERED UNDER RBI),VADAKKEKAD BRANCH,KOMBATHEYIL PADI,KALLOOR. P.O,VADAKKEKKAD,PIN-679 562.REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR C.K.APPUMON, AGED 38 YEARS,S/O.KURIYAPPAN, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE, SANTHI NAGAR,GURUVAYOOR ROAD, KUNNANKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONNANI POLICE STATION,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-670 641. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PERUMBADAPPU POLICE STATION,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 580. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.7727/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. P2 COPY OF THE COMPUTER GENERATED STATEMENT SHOWING THE GOLD PLEDGED AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT DISBURSED. P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORMS AND THE PAWN TICKETS AS WELL AS RECEIPT OF THE ORNAMENTS AND AMOUNTS PAID BY THE COMPANY. P4 COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.62/2011OFPERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION REGISTERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.7727 of 2011-M ***************************** Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court claiming issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and complaining of police harassment. According to the petitioner, he is a non banking financial institution. He runs his business in due compliance with all provisions of law. According to the petitioner, a person, referred to hereafter as the accused, had pledged certain gold ornaments with the petitioner to raise a loan. The petitioner had bona fide entered into that transaction. He had received the pledged gold ornaments and had advanced amounts. According to the petitioner, he has not committed any offence and proceedings initiated against him are transparently vexatious. He is aggrieved by the attempt of the police to seize the gold from his possession. It is, in these circumstances, that directions are claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submits that the police are only bona fide W.P(C) No.7727 of 2011-M 2 investigating into a crime registered at the Perumpadappu police station. A person had pledged certain gold ornaments to another referred to as the defacto complainant. An employee of the defacto complainant, referred to as the accused, had clandestinely removed such pledged ornaments and had re- pledged the same before the petitioner. On the complaint of the defacto complainant, a crime has been registered as Crime No.62 of 2011 as Perumpadappu Police Station. That crime is being investigated. In the course of investigation, the investigating officer felt that the gold ornaments deserve to be seized. Steps are being taken in this direction. According to the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner has no right to seek interruption of the steps taken in the bona fide investigation of the said crime. The proposed seizure of the gold ornaments with the petitioner can, by no stretch of imagination be said to amount to harassment. The petitioner has his rights under law to claim return of the articles seized under Section 457/451 Cr.P.C. At any rate, no directions are liable to be issued to interrupt the investigation that is under way. In these circumstances this petition may be dismissed, submits the learned Government Pleader. W.P(C) No.7727 of 2011-M 3 3. We have considered the arguments on both sides. We are unable to agree that any directions deserve to be issued to the respondent police officials about the manner in which they are to investigate the crime registered. The petitioner is not without remedy if the gold ornaments are seized. He shall certainly be entitled to apply for return of gold ornaments before the appropriate court/Magistrate. In these circumstances, we are unable to agree that the contemplated action can be described as harassment of the petitioner. No direction under Article 226 of the Constitution is consequently liable to be issued, we are satisfied. 4. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. But we may hasten to observe that this judgment shall not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/