IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS SATURDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2010 / 10TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2868 of 2010(G) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BABU JOSEPH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KALAYATHANAL HOUSE, VALLICHIRA KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALA. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PALA. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALA. 5. P.J.JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, PERUVACHIRA HOUSE, VELAKKUMADAM, MALLIKASSERY KARA, PAIKA, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P.N. SUKUMARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 2868 OF 2010 G --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th January, 2010 JUDGDMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner seeks a mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 not to harass the petitioner in any manner in connection with the false complaint made by the fifth respondent. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a business man. The fifth respondent is a friend, who borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/= and for returning that amount, the fifth respondent issued a cheque. Petitioner presented it for collection. It was refused by saying that there is no sufficient funds in the Bank. Now, it is alleged that the fifth respondent is threatening the petitioner and his family members. It is stated that for the last two weeks, the petitioner is being summoned by the third respondent by the silent support of other respondents and insisting him to return the cheque and to settle the matter by receiving Rs.3,500/=. W.P.C.NO.2868 OF 2010 G 2 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader would submit that a complaint was received from the fifth respondent that the petitioner is threatening him. Parties were called to the Police Station. But, the petitioner had not turned up. It is submitted that no cognizable offence is being made out and the petitioner will not be called to the Police Station in connection with the complaint by the fifth respondent. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader and close the Writ Petition. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge