Kerala High Court
Jose Varghese vs The Circle Inspector Of Police on 17 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 17217 OF 2020
PETITIONERS:
1 JOSE VARGHESE,
AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O VARGHESE,
PALLIVATHUKKAL HOUSE,
KANDANAD.P.O,PIN-682305.
2 LISSY JOSE,
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.JOSE VARGHESE ,
PALLIVATHUKKAL HOUSE,
KANDANAD.P.O, PIN-682305.
BY ADVS.
ALEXANDER GEORGE
SMT.CHITHRA R.SHENOY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KUSBA POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM,
PIN-682018.
2 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
ERNAKULAM,OLD RAILWAY STATION,ERNAKULAM NORTH,
PIN-682011.
3 VINEETH PADMALAYAM SUNILKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
ANTHOLIL HOUSE,
NEAR GHS SCHOOL,MUPPATHADAM.P.O,
ALUVA,ERNAKULAM,PIN-683110.
OTHER PRESENT:
Sri. E C Bineesh - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C)No.17217 of 2020
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2021
The petitioners have approached this Court
alleging that respondents 1 and 2 Police Authorities, are
harassing and forcing them to make certain financial
transactions with the 3rd respondent. They, therefore, pray
that this Court direct them not to do so, since the disputes
between the parties are in the realm of civil law particularly,
because they were forced to issue certain cheques to the 3 rd
respondent under pressure earlier.
2. I notice from the files that service of notice has
been completed on respondent No.3, but that he has chosen
not to be present in person or to be represented through
counsel; inferentially guiding me to the impression that he
has nothing to offer in answer to the various allegations in
this writ petition.
3. Sri.E.C.Bineesh-learned Government Pleader,
W.P(C)No.17217 of 2020
submitted that the allegations made against the Police
officers by the petitioners are wholly untrue and that they
have not been subjected to any harassment. He explained
that Police have only caused necessary enquiries with
respect to a complaint preferred by the 3 rd respondent; but
added that no further action has been taken thereon and that
petitioners are not arrayed as accused in any Crime as of
now. He, however, pointed that the petitioners appear to
have given certain cheques to the 3 rd respondent and that he
may have taken action thereon, consequent to its dishonour.
4. When I hear the learned Government Pleader as
afore, it is clear that no further orders are required as far as
petitioners are concerned, because it is luculent that they
are not accused in any Crime, nor are they required to
appear before any Police Station for investigation.
Resultantly, I allow this petition, recording the
submissions of the learned Government Pleader as afore;
consequentially directing respondents 1 and 2 to summon
the writ petitioners, if they are so required in future with
W.P(C)No.17217 of 2020
respect to any crime or complaint, only after issuing them a
notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
NR/17/09/2021
W.P(C)No.17217 of 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ON 10/08/2020.
EXHIBIT P2 THE ORIGINAL OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 13/8/2020.
// TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
