IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35183 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEORGE JACOB @ THANKACHAN, AGED 45, S/O LATE CHACKO, VALIYAPADINJARETHIL, KATTAPPANA P.O., KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.ADEEP ANWAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS), SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KATTAPPANA. 3. SHIBU, AGED ABOUT 43, VAYATTATTIL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA SOUTH PO, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) No.35183 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, directing the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner by compelling him to pay money to the 3rd respondent or compelling him to give security documents to the 3rd respondent on the basis of the claim made by the 3rd respondent by taking and assuming a jurisdiction which is not vested with him. b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, directing the 2nd respondent not to act as recovery officer of the 3rd respondent and sit in judgment over a civil cause allegedly lodged by the 3rd respondent before him. 2. Apparently, there is a dispute with regard to the claim made by the 3rd respondent W.P(C)No.35183 of 2009 :: 2 :: for money with respect to the goods supplied by him. That claim can be pursued in appropriate proceedings. But, the apprehension of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is using his influence to the police to harass the petitioner by compelling him to pay money or to create documents by way of security. Those are not the duties of the police. So, the police shall not interfere with the civil disputes between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, however, submits that a complaint has been filed by him before the police. He has also raised a grievance with regard to the physical assault on the 3rd respondent by the petitioner. 4. If any such complaint is received by the police, it is for the police to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of making it clear that the police shall not interfere with the civil disputes between the parties. But, this judgment shall not stand in W.P(C)No.35183 of 2009 :: 3 :: the way of the police in conducting any enquiry or investigation in respect of a complaint involving the parties to this writ petition. Sd/- (KURIAN JOSEPH) JUDGE Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE SK/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.