Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 8TH ASWINA, 1943 PETITIONER: MOHAMMAD RAFEEK AGED 48 YEARS S/O.HAMSA, BAITHUM NOOR (HOUSE), AYANIKKAD P.O., VADAKARA, NOW RESIDING AT DOOR NO.5 A, KATTOOR, KENDAIYUR ROAD, METTUPALAYAM, COIMBATORE, PIN-641305. BY ADV DENIZEN KOMATH RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER VADAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673504. 3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VADAKARA, O/O.VADAKARA BEACH, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673103. 4 AMMAD PANNIYODAN CHARIVATH, S/O.ABDULLAH PANNIYODAN VELLILADY, MEMUNDA P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE RURAL, PIN-673104. SRI E C BINEESH - GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that he had entered into an agreement for sale of a property in Tamilnadu with the 4th respondent and that certain disputes arose between them relating to it. The petitioner says that the 4th respondent, thereafter, filed a complaint against him in a police station in Tamilnadu and thereafter another, on the same set of allegations, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate. Vadakara, which led to a Crime being registered against him. He submits that he has already approached this Court, through Crl.M.C.No.8033 of 2019 and that all proceedings thereon have been now stayed.
2. The petitioner, however, alleges that in spite of this,
the respondents - Police Authorities, are still calling him to the police station and forcing him to settle the disputes with the 4 th respondent. He asserts that the police Authorities have no authority to do so, particularly because the aforementioned disputes are in the realm of civil law. The petitioner, therefore,
prays that respondents 2 and 3 be directed not to “harass him” or to force him to settle the afore said disputes with the 4 th respondent
3. I have heard Smt.Mereena J. Joseph - learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh - learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.
4. I have not issued notice to the 4th respondent, since the directions that I propose herein will not prejudice him in any manner whatsoever.
5. Sri.E.C.Bineesh - the learned Government Pleader,
submitted that the police have not intervened in the civil disputes between the parties, but have only made some enquiry when the Crime was registered against the petitioner. He submitted that since the matter has now been stayed by this Court, no further investigation is being carried on. In the afore circumstances and taking note of the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, I allow this writ petition and direct respondents 2 and 3 not to summon the petitioner to the police station or to cause any inconvenience to him, except after he is issued with a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Needless to say, the 4th respondent will be at full liberty to pursue his case against the petitioner, notwithstanding the afore directions, in the Crl.M.C.No.8033/2019 now pending before the Court; and the directions afore issued shall stand modulated in adherence to the orders to be issued in the said case.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/30/09/2021 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20074/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VADAKARA DATED 15.11.2017. Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1544/2017 OF 2ND RESPONDENT POLICE STATION.