IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20982 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RAJEEV T.C, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.CHAKRAPANI, RAJAN BHAVAN, KAVIYOOR THIRUVALLA,PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE CHAIRMAN POLICE COMPLAINANT AUTHORITY,KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOTTAYAM 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATION 4. P.R.HARI,VADAKKE KAROTTU HOUSE VAZHAPPALLY PO,CHANGANACHERRY 5. ANEESH, TATA AUTOMOBILE WORKSHOP PADATHUMPALLAM, VALLAMKULAM PO,THIRUVALLA. 6. BASHEER MANNEDUTHAKUZHIYIL HOUSE,NOORANADU PO,MAVELIKKARA. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 20982 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Bhavadasan, J, Petitioner complains of police harassment. As per Exts.P1 and P2 agreement petitioner had purchased a vehicle availing of the financial facility offered by Sree Ram Financiers. Due to financial crisis, petitioner sold the vehicle to the sixth respondent, who had undertaken to pay the monthly instalments to the financier. Later he came to know that the sixth respondent had not been paying the instalments. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the transaction between him and sixth respondent was the consequence of a collusion at the instance of fifth and sixth respondents. So he preferred complaints before the police authorities. According to the petitioner, thereafter from 1st July, 2009 onwards police have been regularly visiting his house and compelling him to pay the amount due to the financier. On 10.7.2009 petitioner WPC.20982/2009. 2 was infact taken to the police station and forced to execute documents in favour of the fourth respondent. His protest was of no avail. Petitioner therefore made a complaint to the District Police Complaints Authority, Kottayam on 10.7.2009, which is produced as Ext.P5. Petitioner says that the police continue their harassment and hence this petition. 2. Learned Government Pleader opposed the petition by pointing out that that the grievance voiced by the petitioner would indicate that it is a civil dispute, and at any rate the petitioner had filed a complaint before the statutory authority, which will be considered. The dispute seems to be purely of a civil nature. However, unnecessary interference by the police is not warranted. Whatever that be, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner has filed a complaint before the proper authority. While that is pending, it is unnecessary for this court to interfere in the matter. WPC.20982/2009. 3 Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to dispose of Ext.P5 in accordance with law. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.