IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6344 of 2010(P)
1. R.MOHANAN, S/O.A.K.RAGHAVAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
3. K.S.RAJAN, S/O.SANKARAN
For Petitioner :SRI.K.R.VINOD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :01/03/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P(C). NO. 6344 OF 2010 P
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st March, 2010
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following
reliefs:
“Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st
and 2nd respondents herein and their subordinates
not to harass the petitioner in any manner and not
to compel the petitioner to execute the Sale Deed
pertaining to his immovable property in favour of
the 3rd respondent or any person claiming under
him.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioner owns and possesses five cents of land. It was
agreed to be sold to the third respondent and he entered into
Ext.P1 agreement. The third respondent was not willing to
WPC. 6344 OF 2010 P 2
purchase the property. He started influencing the second
respondent. Petitioner was taken to the Police Station. The
second respondent shouted against the petitioner asking him to
execute the sale deed. Petitioner was detained in the police
station. It is stated that the second respondent obtained
signatures in the Register kept in the police station and on some
white papers and he was compelled to sign under the writings
made by the Police Constable. Case of the petitioner is that the
second respondent has no authority to interfere in the civil
dispute.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader. Quite clearly, in respect of Ext.P1
agreement, if there is a breach committed by the petitioner, that
is a question to be looked into by the civil court. The second
respondent has no authority to interfere in the civil dispute
between the petitioner and the third respondent. Accordingly,
the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that respondents 1 and
WPC. 6344 OF 2010 P 3
2 will not interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and
the third respondent.
Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
Sd/=
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge