IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21035 of 2008(D)
1. SRI.A.GANESAN, S/O.LATE ARUMUGHA SWAMY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. HARUN RAWTHER, CHATTAMUNNAR TOP,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.M.VARGHESE
For Respondent :SMT.A.K.PREETHA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :04/08/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 21035 OF 2008-D
-----------------------------------------
Dated 4th August, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court, alleging that the 3rd
respondent is harassing him, at the instance of the 4th respondent. The
4th respondent’s sons are associated with a recruiting agency for
recruiting persons for employment abroad, which is stationed in Tamil
Nadu. The said respondent’s sons M/s. Ajmal and Fathulla have
received an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- from the petitioner, promising an
employment visa for him. It was the 4th respondent, who introduced
the petitioner to those persons running the recruiting agency. Now, he
has been cheated by those persons. He has neither been provided with
the employment visa nor the amount paid by him for the said purpose
has been returned. While so, on the basis of some complaint filed by
the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent is calling the petitioner and his
family members to the Police Station and compelling them to pay
Rs.35,000/- to the 4th respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the high-
WPC 21035/2008 2
handed action of the 3rd respondent, this writ petition is filed, seeking
appropriate reliefs.
2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted
that the 4th respondent has filed a petition before the 3rd respondent,
stating that he has taken a building belonging to the petitioner on
rent. An amount of Rs.35,000/- was paid as security towards the rent.
Though the building was surrendered, the petitioner has not returned
the money. Therefore, the 4th respondent requested the 3rd respondent’s
intervention for repayment of the said amount. Based on that petition,
the petitioner was summoned to the Police Station and he agreed to pay
the amount to the 4th respondent. The learned Government Pleader
further submitted that thereafter, the 3rd respondent has not called the
petitioner to the Police Station. The said respondent has no intention
whatsoever, to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and
the 4th respondent.
3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that an
amount of Rs.35,000/- is due from the petitioner, which was given by
WPC 21035/2008 3
way of deposit, when he took a shop room belonging to the petitioner
on rent. Even after the surrender of that room, the said amount is not
being repaid. In the above background, he happened to file the
aforementioned petition before the 3rd respondent.
4. It is not proper for the police to interfere in the civil dispute
between the parties. We dispose of the writ petition, recording the
submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the 3rd
respondent has no intention to harass the petitioner.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
Nm/