IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20982 of 2009(P)
1. RAJEEV T.C, AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHAIRMAN POLICE COMPLAINANT
... Respondent
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
4. P.R.HARI,VADAKKE KAROTTU HOUSE
5. ANEESH, TATA AUTOMOBILE WORKSHOP
6. BASHEER
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :04/08/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 20982 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Bhavadasan, J,
Petitioner complains of police harassment. As per
Exts.P1 and P2 agreement petitioner had purchased a vehicle
availing of the financial facility offered by Sree Ram
Financiers. Due to financial crisis, petitioner sold the vehicle
to the sixth respondent, who had undertaken to pay the
monthly instalments to the financier. Later he came to know
that the sixth respondent had not been paying the instalments.
On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the transaction
between him and sixth respondent was the consequence of a
collusion at the instance of fifth and sixth respondents. So he
preferred complaints before the police authorities. According
to the petitioner, thereafter from 1st July, 2009 onwards police
have been regularly visiting his house and compelling him to
pay the amount due to the financier. On 10.7.2009 petitioner
WPC.20982/2009. 2
was infact taken to the police station and forced to execute
documents in favour of the fourth respondent. His protest was of
no avail. Petitioner therefore made a complaint to the District
Police Complaints Authority, Kottayam on 10.7.2009, which is
produced as Ext.P5. Petitioner says that the police continue their
harassment and hence this petition.
2. Learned Government Pleader opposed the petition
by pointing out that that the grievance voiced by the petitioner
would indicate that it is a civil dispute, and at any rate the
petitioner had filed a complaint before the statutory authority,
which will be considered.
The dispute seems to be purely of a civil nature.
However, unnecessary interference by the police is not warranted.
Whatever that be, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government
Pleader, the petitioner has filed a complaint before the proper
authority. While that is pending, it is unnecessary for this court to
interfere in the matter.
WPC.20982/2009. 3
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the
first respondent to dispose of Ext.P5 in accordance with law.
P.R. Raman,
Judge
P. Bhavadasan,
Judge
sb.