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 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31804 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJAN ITTYERAH,REGIONAL MANAGER, CANAM CONSULTANTS LTD, 44/3329-B, MATHEWSONS TRADE CENTRE, OPPOSITE INTERNATIONAL STADIUM, KALOOR - KOCHI - 682 017. BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN POLICE STATION, CHITTOOR ROAD - ERNAKULAM. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 4. JACOB GEORGE, PARAKKATT HOUSE, VADAKKUMPURAM P.O., KUTUKAD - ERNAKULAM 683 521. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 31804 OF 2008-J ----------------------------------------- Dated 29th October, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the Regional Manager of Canam Consultants Limited. He submits, it is a reputed company, engaged in the field of rendering service and assistance for migration and studies abroad in countries like Australia, U.K., Canada, etc. The 4th respondent was one of the clients of the said company. He approached the company for going abroad. When it was found that his credentials were not sufficient to go abroad for employment, he nominated his wife in his place. His wife was to be sent to Australia. All that should be done from the side of the petitioner have already been done in the case of the 4th respondent's wife. Even then, because of various reasons, actual clearance is not received. But, the 4th respondent is impatient. He demanded refund of the amount paid by him towards professional WPC 31804/08 2 charges etc. But, in view of the terms of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the petitioner is not liable to repay the amount. So, the 4th respondent has started threatening the petitioner through telephone as well as directly coming to his office. The said respondent along with two people came to the office on 20.6.2008 and created a scene there. Thereafter, he continued to threaten the petitioner over phone. Again, on 21.10.2008, he telephoned and gave an ultimatum that unless the amounts are paid within 24 hours, he will enlist the support of political parties and others and send people to the petitioner's office and home and take whatever action required to get refund of the money paid by him. In view of the said threat held out by the 4th respondent, the petitioner preferred Ext.P15 representation before the 2nd respondent S.I of Police, Ernakulam Town Police Station and Ext.P16 representation before the 3rd respondent S.I of Police, Kadavanthra Police Station. Thereafter, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking appropriate directions to the said respondents to take appropriate action against the 4th respondent and his men, to stop them from threatening the petitioner and his family WPC 31804/08 3 members. The petitioner also prays for necessary protection to his life and property, in view of the threat held out by the 4th respondent. 2. Going by the averments in the representations filed by the petitioner, we are of the view that they do not disclose any cognizable offence, based on which the police should register a case and investigate the same. Even assuming the said representations disclose a cognizable offence and the police do not take any action, the remedy of the petitioner is to move the Magistrate's court concerned, in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [2008(1) KLT 724(SC)]. In that decision the Apex Court has held that it is not proper for the High Court to issue directions to the police to register a case and investigate the same, even if the police failed to do that on an information lodged regarding the commission of a cognizable offence. 3. Having regard to the averments in the aforementioned representations, we feel that the petitioner has approached this Court, based on his apprehensions. At this stage, we are not inclined to hold that the police have failed to discharge their duty under the Police Act WPC 31804/08 4 or the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, we are not justified in issuing any mandamus to the police at this stage. Our jurisdiction to issue directions to the police is co-terminous with the failure of duty of the police. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to approach this Court again, if actual cause of action arises in future. But, this judgment will not affect the powers of the police to take action in accordance with law, if any cognizable offence is reported or the right of the petitioner to move the civil court for an order of injunction against commission of nuisance etc, by the 4th respondent. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/