High Court Kerala High Court

K.S.Joy vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
K.S.Joy vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 33940 of 2008(M)


1. K.S.JOY, S/O.DEVASSY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY
                       ...       Respondent

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ANGAMALY

3. S.I. OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE

4. UNNI, S/O.NARAYANAN, KOSHANAYI HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.S.MOHAMED HASHIM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN

 Dated :05/12/2008

 O R D E R
                      K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &

                           V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.

                   -----------------------------------------

                    W.P.(C) NO.33940 OF 2008-M

                   -----------------------------------------

                       Dated 5th December, 2008.

                               JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The petitioner entered into an agreement for sale of a property

with the 4th respondent and received Rs.16 lakhs as advance towards

the sale consideration. As per the agreement, a copy of which is

produced as Ext.P1, the petitioner submits, the 4th respondent should

have paid the balance consideration and got the sale deed executed

before 31.1.2008. But, the said respondent failed to perform his part of

the contract, though the petitioner was always ready and willing to do

whatever he should do under the agreement. Therefore, the petitioner

caused to issue Ext.P2 lawyer notice, terminating the agreement and

forfeiting the amount paid as advance. Soon thereafter, the 2nd and 3rd

respondents started calling him, to compel him to settle the matter with

the 4th respondent. Since the petitioner did not agree to that, police

WPC 33940/2008 2

constables are being sent to his residence every day, to ask him to

appear before respondents 2 and 3. He has also been called through his

mobile phone and strictly directed to appear before the said

respondents. The petitioner apprehends, respondents 2 and 3 propose to

compel him to execute a fresh agreement with the 4th respondent. In

the above background, this Writ Petition was filed, seeking reliefs

against the harassment from the part of respondents 2 and 3.

2. The 3rd respondent has filed a statement, in which it is

submitted that on the basis of petition No.886/PTN/08/Angamaly

Police Station, a constable was deputed to summon the petitioner. But,

he was not available in his rented house. So. his mobile phone number

was collected and he was informed to appear before the police. But, he

did not turn up. Later, crime No.1808/08 was registered under Section

324 read with 34 of the I.P.C against the petitioner on 27.11.2008. The

police deny the allegations of harassment against him.

3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is

stated that though he was ready and willing to perform his part under

Ext.P1 agreement, the petitioner did not come forward to execute the

WPC 33940/2008 3

sale deed. On 30.10.2008, he personally approached the petitioner for

repayment of the advance amount paid by him. On the next day night,

when he was proceeding to his house after closing his shop, the

petitioner beat him using an iron rod on his head and caused injury and

he was hospitalised. Based on the information given by the police, a

crime has been registered against the petitioner. Unfounded allegations

are made by the petitioner to wriggle out of the liability to pay Rs.16

lakhs to him. It is also submitted that he has already moved the civil

court for recovery of the said amount.

4. Now that a crime has been registered against the petitioner, he

will have to be arrested and questioned. If any action is taken by the

police for the same, the same cannot be described as harassment from

the part of the police. But, against his apprehended arrest and other

grievances, the petitioner has remedies under law. So, he may work

out the remedies available to him under law before the competent

civil/criminal court, as the case may be. But, the police shall not

interfere in the civil dispute concerning breach of Ext.P1 agreement.

Subject to this observation and without prejudice to the petitioner’s

WPC 33940/2008 4

rights to move other forums for appropriate reliefs, the Writ Petition is

dismissed.

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.

Nm/