IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 31027 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, S/O.KUNJU PILLAI, CHITHIRA HOUSE, CHANGANPUZHA NAGAR, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, COCHIN-33. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOHN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CIRLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. 3. GOPINATHA PILLAI, PANAGHAT HOUSE, SHOORANAD, KOLLAM. 4. SUDHEESH KUMAR, KADUVANKAL THEKETHIL HOUSE, SHOORANAD SOUTH, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 31027/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE PAY-IN-SLIP DATED 15TH DECEMBER, 2005 FOR REMITTING THE AMOUNT IN THE NAME OF SURESH. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE PAY-IN-SLIP DATED 21ST DECEMBER, 2005. EXT.P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.34113/06 DT. 9.1.2007. EXT.P4 - A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 8.10.2007. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R3(A) – A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED FROM THE POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-R2(a) – A TRUECOPY OF THE COMPLAINT. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.31027 OF 2007-R ----------------------------------------- Dated 3rd January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner submits, he introduced respondents 3 and 4 to one Mr.Suresh, who is running a pre-recruitment training centre at Kozhikode. The said person received some amount from them towards service charges, as evident from Exts.P1 and P2 pay-in-slips. In the recruitment process to the Army, the respondents 3 and 4 were not cleared in the medical examination. Therefore, they started demanding repayment of the money, which they paid to the said Mr.Suresh. According to the petitioner, he has no connection with the pre-recruitment training centre . At the request of respondents 3 and 4, he only introduced them to the said Mr.Suresh. Of late, respondents 3 and 4 are threatening the petitioner and harassing him, demanding the money they paid to Mr.Suresh. So, he moved the police by filing a representation claiming protection to his life. When the police did not act on that representation, this writ petition is filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. Wpc 31027/2007 2 2. The petitioner also points out that earlier on a complaint filed by respondents 3 and 4, the police started harassing him. So, he moved this Court and obtained orders against harassment from the part of the police. The 3rd respondent in that writ petition was the councillor of the local Municipality, who filed the complaint against the petitioner on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. 3. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement, in which it is submitted that the petitioner is involved in a job racket. He cheated so many persons and collected several lakhs of rupees. A crime under Section 420 of the I.P.C has already been registered against him as Crime No.992/2007. 4. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is submitted that the petitioner is the head of a job racket and he received Rs.2.25 lakhs from the said respondent, his sister and another, to get employment for their children. He is not willing to repay the amount, though demand was raised for the same. The 3rd respondent denies the allegations raised against him. Though this Court ordered notice to the 4th respondent, the same was returned with the endorsement that he left India. 5. Having regard to the facts disclosed in this case, we notice that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. It is true, he denies them. But, having regard to the nature of the allegations, we feel that it is not Wpc 31027/2007 3 proper for this Court to extend any helping hand to the petitioner, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has to seek the ordinary remedies available to him under the civil and criminal laws of the land. Accordingly, the prayer for police protection is declined and the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/