IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19434 of 2008(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DR. B.SASIKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, GREEN VILLA, KUMAR PLANTATIONS, HAJIARKUZHY, ROSEMALA P.O., VIA ARYANKAVU. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, ADV. SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULATHUPUZHA. 2. BAHULEYAN, CHEMBUMKUZHY, VASANTHAVILASOM VEEDU, CHEMBOOR DESOM, MUDAKKAL VILLAGE. 3. VIJEESH, S/O BAHULEYAN, CHEMBUMKUZHY, VASANTHAVILASOM VEEDU, CHEMBOOR DESOM, MUDAKKAL VILLAGE. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SALIM. P.A FOR R1, ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL FOR R2 & R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.19434/2008-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 03/04/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 13/06/2008 BEFORE THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE R.2 BEFORE THE C.I. OF POLICE, KULATHUPUZHA. //TRUE COPY// prv. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.19434 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JULY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner owns 20 acres of rubber plantation near Aryankavu in Kollam District. He entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent concerning slaughter tapping of the rubber trees of the said estate. Exhibit P1 is a photocopy of the said agreement. The 2nd respondent was entitled to cut and remove the trees also. The total consideration for transfer of those rights in favour of the said respondent was Rs.45 lakhs. The petitioner submits, he received Rs.15 lakhs in advance. Later, it appears, the 2nd respondent became disinterested and he abandoned the slaughter tapping. Thereafter, the said respondent started demanding the amount paid by him. The 3rd respondent who is the son of the 2nd respondent is also supporting the 2nd respondent. When the petitioner did not oblige, they came to the petitioner's residence and manhandled him. On the basis of the information lodged by him, a crime has been registered as Crime No.162/08 of Kulathoopuzha Police Station under Sections 457, 506(i), 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner also filed W.P.(C)No.19434/08 -2- Exhibit P2 petition before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kulathoopuzha to give protection to him. Since, the police did not take any effective action, this writ petition is filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that after the registration of the crime, there was no threat to the life of the petitioner from the part of respondents 2 and 3. The respondents 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioner. According to them, after the execution of Exhibit P1 agreement, the 3rd respondent tapped the rubber trees for some time. Later, the petitioner wanted to get back the timber which as per the agreement was belonging to the 2nd respondent. The dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was settled and the value of the latex extracted by the 2nd respondent was fixed as Rs.11.5 lakhs. The petitioner agreed to repay the balance amount of Rs.8.5 lakhs to him. Thereafter, the petitioner took over the possession of the estate and started tapping there. But, he did not honour his words and did not return Rs.8.5 lakhs. Instead, when the 2nd respondent went to the estate demanding the amount due to him, he was threatened by the petitioner, his workmen and hired muscle men. So, he preferred Exhibit R2(a) petition before the C.I. of Police, Kulathoopuzha. The C.I. of Police called both sides and a settlement was arrived at in his presence, wherein the W.P.(C)No.19434/08 -3- petitioner agreed to repay Rs.8.5 lakhs within 45 days. Within two days after the settlement, the petitioner has filed this Writ petition, it is submitted. So, the 2nd respondent submits, the motion made before this Court is without any bona fides. 3. The petitioner denies the above allegations of the 2nd respondent and also the settlement stated to have been arrived at before the C.I. of Police agreeing to pay Rs.8.5 lakhs to the 2nd respondent. 4. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and counter allegations, we feel that this is not a fit case for this Court to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction and pass any order in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner to redress his grievance, if any, has to work out the ordinary remedies available to him as per the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of both sides. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn