High Court Kerala High Court

Abdul Samad vs Inspector General Of Police on 15 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Abdul Samad vs Inspector General Of Police on 15 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28512 of 2010(L)


1. ABDUL SAMAD, S/O. HUSSAIN, AGED 30 YRS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. ANEESH K.S., S/O. SOMANATHAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :15/09/2010

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
                     P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
                  -------------------------------------------
                    W.P(C).No.28512 OF 2010
                  -------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010


                              JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

Having regard to the nature of the directions being issued

hereunder, notice to the 4th respondent is dispensed with

preserving his right to seek re-hearing of the matter, if

aggrieved. Learned Government Pleader appears for

respondents 1 to 3.

The petitioner says that he purchased an Indica car from

the 4th respondent by executing an agreement. However, he was

unable to pay certain portion of the instalments due to financial

crisis. He says that the third respondent and police men are

trying to harass him at the instance of the 4th respondent. He

alleges that the police is trying to interfere with the civil dispute.

We are sure that the police are not to interfere with any civil

dispute and cannot also act as agents to re-possess vehicles on

WPC.28512/10

2

behalf of any person who is entitled to amounts in any

hypothecation transaction. We therefore, direct respondents 2

and 3 to ensure that the police is not interfering with any civil

dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and the

law and order is maintained. This is without prejudice to the

right of the petitioner or the 4th respondent to seek redressel of

grievances through competent courts, including civil courts, if

needed. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

Sd/-

P.Q.BARKATH ALI,
Judge.

kkb.16/09.