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 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 32272 of 2007(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JEEVAN TOM, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, ANJUKANDATHIL VEEDU, KURUMAN P.O., MELUKAVU. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELUKAVU. 2. THE D.Y.S.P., PALA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. TOM JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, THOTTAPALLIL HOUSE, MELAMPARA, PLASANAL P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE (PADINJAREKARA) GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 32272/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.356/2006 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALA. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.150/2007. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 7.9.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27.10.2007 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R4(a) – TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1830/05 OF SRO, RAMAPURAM. EXT.R4(b) – TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT NO.3915617 DATED 17.10.2007. EXT.R4(c) – TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S EXTENSION PETITION DATED 12.9.2007. EXT.R4(d) – TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S EXTENSION PETITION DATED 23.10.2007. EXT.R4(e) – TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S EXTENSION PETITION DATED 30.1.2008. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 32272 OF 2007-P ----------------------------------------- Dated 28th February, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner submits, he is an agriculturist. His father is not on good terms with him and his family including his mother. The father, who is living separately, assigned a portion of the family property to the 4th respondent. The assigned land is in the middle portion of the family property. No boundaries are there, demarcating the assigned property. Even after the assignment, the petitioner submits, the said plot is also in the possession of the family. The 4th respondent, who is the purchaser of the said property, has filed Ext.P1 suit before the Munsiff's Court, Pala for measuring and demarcating the boundaries of the plaint schedule property and also for other consequential reliefs. The petitioner submits, though an injunction application was moved in that suit, no orders are passed in it by the learned Munsiff. While so, the police have registered crime No.150/2007 against the employees of the petitioner for the offence of theft. Later he is also made an accused in that crime. Recently, there was an attempt on his life by a designed motor accident, in which he was WPC 32272/2007 2 knocked down. Now, he is hospitalized. Presently, at the instance of the 4th respondent, the police are registering false cases against him and are harassing him. In the above background, after filing Ext.P4 representation before the 3rd respondent Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, this writ petition is filed, seeking appropriate reliefs against the harassment of the police officers. 2. The 1st respondent would submit that the 4th respondent has purchased 2 acres and 67 cents of rubber plantation from the father of the petitioner and the said person is in possession of the said plantation. On the complaint filed by the 4th respondent, a crime has been registered against the petitioner and his employees for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the I.P.C. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a notorious criminal and he is an accused in Crime Nos.152/01, 331/03 and 4/04. The police are only investigating the crimes registered against him in accordance with law. The allegations of harassment are denied by the 1st respondent. 3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner is a notorious criminal. He is an accused in several crimes and the police are investigating them. To wriggle out of the consequences of registration of the crimes and their investigation, this writ petition is filed without any bona fides, it is submitted. The 4th respondent reiterates that he WPC 32272/2007 3 is in possession of the property he purchased from the father of the petitioner in 2005. 4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. Having regard to the allegations and counter allegations, we feel that we need not issue any positive direction in this matter in favour of one side or the other. But, we record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the police are investigating the crimes registered against the petitioner in accordance with law and they have no intention to harass him. It is also submitted that the investigation into the crimes cannot be described as a harassment to him. The petitioner has not been arrested in the crime recently registered against him, because he is presently hospitalized. Recording the above submission of the learned Government Pleader, the writ petition is disposed of. Needless to say, while investigating the crimes, the police may not interfere in the civil dispute, which has to be resolved by the competent civil court. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/ WPC 32272/2007 4