Jibin P. Johns vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 22863 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 14276 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          JIBIN P. JOHNS
          AGED 25 YEARS
          S/O.JOHNSON P.V., PANACHAVILA KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU,
          CHAKKUVARAKKAL P.O, VETTIKKAVALA, KOLLAM - 691 508.

          BY ADVS.
          R.SANTHOSH (VARKALA)
          S.JAYAKRISHNAN (VARKALA)
          C.R.VIJAYAKUMARAN PILLAI
          MUKESH KUMAR G.


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

    2     BINU P.V.
          AGED 35 YEARS
          S/O.VARGHESE GEORGE, BAIJU VILASOM, NARICKAL P.O.,
          PUNALUR, KOLLAM - 691 333.

    3     GIREESH KUMAR R.
          AGED 33 YEARS
          S/O.REGHUNATHAN PILLAI, GIREESH BHAVANAM,
          PALLARIMANGALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA - 690 107.

    4     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          KUNNIKODU POLICE STATION, KOTTARAKKAR,A KOLLAM
          DISTRICT, PIN - 691 508.

          BY ADVS.
          V.VISAL AJAYAN
          A.SREEPRIYA
          E.C.BINEESH,GP
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 14276 OF 2021
                                    2



                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he, along with

respondents 3 and 4, is the trustee of "PMT

Education & Charitable Trust". He says that

even though the Trust was carrying on their

activities satisfactory in the past, certain

disputes have arisen, particularly because the

2nd respondent borrowed large amount from him

and refused to return the same and that this

has now created a lot of acrimony between them.

2. The petitioner says that when he

demanded the amount, he was abducted by

respondents 2 and 3 to Shenkottai and attacked;

forcing him to avail medical assistance on

account of the injuries sustained. He says

that, thereafter, the 2nd respondent returned

his personal laptop and mobile phones and was

issued a post dated cheque for Rs.10,00,000/-;

but that he is now being meted out with extreme WP(C) NO. 14276 OF 2021

threats and intimidation by the said

respondent, demanding that he return the cheque

and give up his rights over the aforementioned

Trust.

3. The petitioner says that he, therefore,

preferred Ext.P3 complaint before the 4th

respondent seeking protection; but that since

no action was taken thereon, he has been

constrained to approach this Court through this

writ petition.

4. I have heard Sri.R.Santhosh (Varkkala)

- learned counsel for the petitioner;

Sri.V.Visal Ajayan - learned counsel appearing

for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri.E.C.Bineesh -

learned Government Pleader appearing for

respondents 1 and 4.

5. Sri.V.Visal Ajayan - learned counsel

for respondents 2 and 3, submitted that every

allegation made in this writ petition are

incorrect, and that, in fact, it is the WP(C) NO. 14276 OF 2021

petitioner who had availed a large loan from

his clients. He then added that, in any event

of the matter, his clients have not taken law

into their hands, nor do they intend to do so;

and that they have not meted out any threat or

intimidation to him, as has been alleged.

6. Sri.E.C.Bineesh - learned Government

Pleader, submitted that Ext.P3 complaint has

not been received by the 4th respondent; but

that, in spite of the same, said Authority has

ensured that law and order has been maintained,

without any breach being committed by any party

until now.

7. When I consider the afore submissions,

it is without doubt that the parties accused

each other of various acts of violation of law.

However, while this Court acts under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, it will be

impossible for me to enter into the same or

evaluate its merits in any manner whatsoever. WP(C) NO. 14276 OF 2021

8. As far as this Court is concerned, I am

only enjoined to ensure that lives of the

parties - as any other citizen - are adequately

protected.

In the afore perspective, I order this writ

petition, leaving liberty to the petitioner to

approach the 4th respondent with a complaint in

case of any conduct from respondents 2 and 3 in

violation of law; in which event, said

Authority will act upon it in terms of law,

including by charging necessary Crime against

the perpetrators, swiftly and quickly, without

any avoidable delay.

Needless to say, the 4th respondent will

ensure that law and order is maintained in the

area where the petitioner is residing, without

any breach being allowed to be committed by any

person, including the party respondents or

their men or associates.

It also goes without saying that the WP(C) NO. 14276 OF 2021

parties are at full liberty to pursue their

appropriate legal remedies against each other;

and I specifically clarify that my observations

and directions herein cannot be used by them in

any manner during such proceedings.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE SAS/23/11/2021 WP(C) NO. 14276 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14276/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.REGISTRATION CARD DATED 28/04/2021 ISSUED FROM THE TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, KOTTARAKKARA.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE NO.010586 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12/06/2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.