IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27746 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. RAMESH KUMAR,AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.K.P.GOPINATHAN NAIR,RESIDING AT 'SIVAPRIYA', KALUTHAN KADAVU,PUTHIYARA.P.O,KOZHIKODE-673004. 2. SNISHA RAMESH,AGED 34 YEARS,W/O.RAMESH, RESIDING AT 'SIVAPRIYA',KALUTHAN KADAVU, PUTHIYARA.P.O,KOZHIKODE-673004. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SRI.K.R.RANJITH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KASABA POLICE STATION,PUTHIYARA,KOZHIKODE-673004. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KASABA POLICE STATION,PUTHIYARA,KOZHIKODE-673004. 3. JOJI THOMAS,S/O.THOMAS GEORGE, RESIDING AT 8-A,SKYLLINE FLORENTA,POTTAKUZHI, KALOOR,KOCHI-682017. 4. MATHEW JOSEPH,S/O.P.U.JOSEPH, DON VILLA,THIRUVNKULAM,ERNAKULAM-682305. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN R1, R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27746 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P2: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 4.6.2011. EXHIBIT-P3: COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 20.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE OF THE IST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P4: COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 20.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE OF THE IST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P5: COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P3. EXHIBIT-P6: COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT -P4. EXHIBIT-P7: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.5.2011. EXHIBIT-P8: COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 20.6.2011. EXHIBIT-P9: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 29.6.2011 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P10:COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P11:COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P10. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE jma PIUS C KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ --------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 27746 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT C.K. Abdul Rehim, J Petitioners are husband and wife. This writ petition is filed seeking direction against respondents 1 and 2, for restraining them from causing any sort of harassment to the petitioners, in connection with complaint if any filed by respondents 4 and 5. It is stated that the 3rd respondent had issued Ext.P1 and 2 lawyer notices with respect to dishonour of cheques issued by the first petitioner, and demanding payment of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- being amounts covered under the respective cheques. The petitioner replied the lawyer notices through Exts.P3 and P4, refuting the alleged liability, which was acknowledged by the lawyer of the 3rd respondent as evidenced from Exts.P5 and P6. Subsequently Ext.P7 lawyer notice was issued at the behest of the 4th respondent demanding a huge sum of Rs.15,50,000/-. The petitioner caused Ext.P8 reply refuting the liability. Thereafter yet another lawyer notice, Ext.P9, was received by the second petitioner which is 2 WP(C) No. 27746/2011 seen sent on behalf of the 3rd respondent, demanding a sum of Rs.5 lakhs alleged to have been borrowed by the second respondent. The said notice was also replied through Ext.P10, refuting any liability. 2. While facts remaining like that, the first petitioner was called by the first respondent on the basis of a complaint received from the 3rd respondent. Eventhough the first petitioner denied the liability, the first respondent compelled for repeated appearance of the first petitioner without issuing any notice, in order to coerce for a settlement in favour of the 3rd respondent, which according to the petitioner is purely a monitory dispute of civil nature. 3. When the matter came up for consideration, we directed the learned Government Pleader to ascertain the correctness of the acquisitions made. Sri. Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran, learned Government Pleader submitted on the basis of instructions received from the first respondent, that the first petitioner was summoned only for the purpose of enquiry on the basis of a complaint received from the 3rd respondent. Since it was revealed that the dispute pertains to monitory transactions no further steps have been taken. 4. It is pertinent to note that this Court in various 3 WP(C) No. 27746/2011 judgments have repeatedly made it clear and warned the police officials entrusted with law and order duty to refrain from interfering in disputes between parties which is of purely civil nature or that of monitory transactions. Merely because a complaint is received, it is not obligatory on the part of the police officials to summon the opposite side if it is prima facie evident that the dispute arise out of a monitory transaction. In such cases the complaint need be rejected or closed advising the party to seek remedy under common law. 5. However, in the present case, since it is submitted that the presence of the petitioners are no more required for any purpose of investigation or enquiry, we close this writ petition recording such submissions. Respondents 1 and 2 are restrained from interfering in any manner with the dispute existing between the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4. PIUS C KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc