Smt.Annie.A.T vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 12190 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

     FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.9229 OF 2021(C)


PETITIONER:

               SMT.ANNIE.A.T
               AGED 55 YEARS
               W/O.THOMAS, ARESSERIL HOUSE, ARTHUNKAL P.O.,
               CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA-688530.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH
               SRI.V.MAHENDRANATH

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
               SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      2        THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
               KOTTAYAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, NEAR
               KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM-KUMILY RD,
               COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686002.

      3        THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
               ERATTUPETTA OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR,
               ERATTUPETTA MAIN RD, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-
               686121.

      4        SHIJO SHAJI,
               KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, POONJAR, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM
               DISTRICT-686581.

               BY ADV. SR. PP SANTHOSH PETER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.9229 OF 2021(C)

                                     2




                              JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution, seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the second

respondent to expedite the enquiry pursuant to Ext.P3 complaint.

According to the petitioner, vehicle KL-32-M-5051, owned by

her was forcibly taken by the fourth respondent, for which, even

though the police was approached and sought to initiate criminal

prosecution, they remain dormant and are refusing to do so and

that made her to approach this Court with the writ petition.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

submits that the vehicle was handed over to the fourth respondent

pursuant to an agreement for sale given by the son of the

petitioner. Since, it is a civil dispute between the parties, the

police did not register a crime and thus the enquiry was closed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner presses for

registering a crime against the fourth respondent. But, having

regard to the fact a preliminary enquiry had already been done WP(C).No.9229 OF 2021(C)

and an opinion formed by the officials that it is purely a civil

dispute, this court at this stage cannot be justified in directing to

register a crime. Whether the son of the petitioner had entered

into a sale agreement, whether he was competent to do so, etc.

cannot be considered by this court. If the petitioner is so advised,

she can initiate proceedings under the Code of Criminal

Procedure, seeking appropriate reliefs.

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL

JUDGE

SKP/23-4 WP(C).No.9229 OF 2021(C)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE WITH REG.NO.KL-32-M-5051.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.03.2021 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.03.2021 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE