IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4243 of 2009(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.A.VINCENT, BRIDGEET LANDMARK ENGINEERS, BEHIND VALLIVATTOM SILKS AND SAREES NEAR KRISHNA AYURVEDIC, ALOOR, TRICHUR. BY ADV. MR.ABRAHAM JOHN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MR.DUNSTON L.NARONA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, COMPUMOBILES, 50/954, NEAR POST OFFICE, EDAPPALLY-682 024. 2. ABDUL SAMAD, PROPRIETOR, M/S.WHITE LINE AGENCY, WHITE HOUSE, 41/1503, PULLEPADY, ERNAKULAM. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODAKARA POLICE STATION, KODAKARA, TRISSUR. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. BENJAMIN PAUL, R1 BY ADV. MR.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.4243/2009-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER DTD. 11TH DECEMBER 2008. EXT.P.2 & P2 (A): THE DELIVERY CHALLAN DTD. 16/12/08. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD. 30/12/08 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 31/01/09. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE SAID COMPLAINT DTD. 02/02/09 ISSUED TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE CHEQUE DTD. 17/01/2009 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE R.1. BEFORE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TRICHUR. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. J.B. Koshy,Ag.C.J. & V.Giri, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 4243 of 2009 E ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 Judgment Koshy, Ag.C.J. This is a petition for police protection. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that all the allegations are not correct. We are not expressing any opinion regarding merits of the disputes between the petitioner and respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents also submits that they are not threatening the petitioner. At the same time, cheques issued were in the possession of the first respondent. Police protection order cannot be used as shield when petition under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is launched. We are not expressing any opinion regarding the merits of disputes between the petitioner and the respondents. However, we direct the police to see that law and order is maintained and lives of both sides are not endangered. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. J.B.Koshy Acting Chief Justice V. Giri Judge vaa