IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20412 of 2008(E) PETITIONER: RAJMOHAN, S/O. NATARAJAN PILLAI NATARAJ VILASOM, UDIYANKULANGARA DESOM NEYYATTINKARA, ARAYOOR P.O.,TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN PANICKER SRI.M.R.SASITH PANICKER RESPONDENTS : 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE STATION, PARASSALA,TRIVANDRUM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE STATION, PARASSALA,TRIVANDRUM. 3. BINU, S/O.SADANANDAN, KUZHIVILAKATHU PUTHENVILA VEETTIL KATTUPURAM, ATTINGAL,TRIVANDRUM. R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SALIM P.A. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOLWEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED 20.6.2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPIES OF CHEQUE NO.150215513642 IN THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD AND DISHONOUR MEMO. EXT,R3(b) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY MOTHER-IN-LAW OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HOME MINISTER. //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ. ............................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 20412 OF 2008 ............................................................................ Dated this the 22nd July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioner was running a travel agency. He submits that in his establishment he employed one Jayarajan and that the said person without his knowledge or concurrence, collected amounts from various persons promising them visa for employment abroad. Since he could not provide employment visa to persons from whom he collected money, he suddenly went underground and while going away he took some money and valuables of the petitioner, it is stated. So the petitioner has filed a private complaint before the court arraying Jayarajan as the accused and the same has been forwarded to the police. The police had registered a crime against him. While so, the third respondent along with some of his men came to the establishment of the petitioner and claimed that he has paid a sum of Rs. 73,000/- to Jayarajan and demanded back the said amount. The petitioner preferred a complaint before the second respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, Parassala complaining about the harassment of the third respondent. But no action was taken against him. The petitioner apprehends threat to his life from the third respondent and his supporters. Hence this Writ Petition seeking for appropriate reliefs. 2. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations levelled against him. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has received Rs. 73,000/- from the said respondent promising to provide him visa for employment abroad. When he failed to provide the visa, the petitioner issued a cheque dated 07.04.2008 for Rs.73,000/- When it was presented before the bank, it was dishonoured. So he only demanded payment of that amount. W.P.(C) No. 20412 OF 2008 2 3. Learned Government Pleader, upon instruction, submitted that the petitioner has received money from several persons promising visa for employment abroad. Since the petitioner failed to provide them with visa , they approached the petitioner for re-payment of the amounts . Some of them have approached the police also. Learned Government Pleader submits that police protection may not be ordered to the petitioner. 4. Whether the petitioner or his employee has received money from persons is a disputed question. But from the materials on record, it it clear that the petitioner has issued a cheque to the third respondent to discharge his liability. Going by the facts of this case, we , prima facie, feel that the petitioner is involved in a visa racket case. Therefore, this court would not be justified in asking the police to stand guard to him. The petitioner has to invoke the remedies available to him under the Code of Civil Procedure or Code of Criminal Procedure to redress his grievances. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other appropriate forums. It is made clear that if other appropriate forums are approached, the said forum shall deal with the matter uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this court in this judgment. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk