K P Chandran vs The District Police Chief
2022 Latest Caselaw 8836 Ker

W.P.(Crl.).No.63/22                    1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
     THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
                        WP(CRL.) NO. 63 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

              K.P CHANDRAN,
              AGED 46 YEARS,
              S/O.KELAPPAN, KOLLAN KUNNU PARAMBIL, CHERUTHAZHAM
              VILLAGE,MANDOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 501.

              BY ADV P.M.UNNI NAMBOODIRI


RESPONDENTS:

      1       THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
              KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 002.

      2       THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
              KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 002.

      3       THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
              C I OFFICE, PAYYANNR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 307.

      4       RAJESH PANNACHIRAMMEL,
              AGED 40 YEARS,
              KANAYI, THOTTOMKADAVU, KOROM VILLAGE,
              KANNUR DISTRICT-670 307.

      5       THE CHERUTHAZHAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
              PILATHARA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 502.

              SRI.C.S.HRITHIK,SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


       THIS     WRIT   PETITION   (CRIMINAL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(Crl.).No.63/22                     2

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the

following reliefs:

"To issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the 4th respondent for cheating the petitioner and to protect the peaceful life of the petitioner and project law and order in public life."

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the respondents 1

and 3 are not taking any action upon the complaint submitted by

him against the 4th respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is

as follows:

The petitioner is doing Jewellery work at Pazayangady in the

name Aradhana Jewellery Works. The 4 th respondent approached

the petitioner seeking help for him to withdraw the jewellery from

the 5th respondent Bank by paying the amount due to the bank.

Accordingly, on the basis of the understanding reached between

the petitioner and the 4th respondent, he purchased the aforesaid

gold ornaments which was having a gross weight of 57.27 grams.

After deducting the weight of stones of the ornaments, total

quantity of the gold was 51.5 grams. Accordingly, the dues payable

by the 4th respondent to the bank was cleared by the petitioner and

the gold ornaments were collected by him. However, when the

aforesaid gold was melted by the petitioner, it was noticed that the

ornaments were made by filling wax inside the gold ornaments for

cheating the customers and thereby actual gold contained therein

was not 51.5 grams as claimed by the 4 th respondent and also as

recorded by the bank. It is the case of the petitioner that, the

aforesaid act was a willful act on the part of the 4 th respondent to

cheat the petitioner. The complaint was submitted in such

circumstances.

3. In response to the averments contained in the writ

petition, a statement was filed by the 3 rd respondent, wherein it is

mentioned that upon receipt of the complaint, all the parties were

called to the Police Station and a preliminary enquiry was

conducted. According to the 3 rd respondent, the dispute is civil in

nature and therefore, no further action has been taken.

4. I have heard Sri.P.M.Unni Namboodiri, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Smt.Seena C., learned Public Prosecutor for

the State. Since the dispute is relating to the question whether a

crime has to be registered or not, I do not deem it necessary to

issue notice to the other respondents.

After perusing the records, I have very serious doubt as to

whether the stand taken by the 3 rd respondent to the effect that the

dispute is civil in nature is correct or not. The grievance

highlighted by the petitioner is relating to manipulation committed

on the gold ornaments, so as to indicate the quantity of the gold

higher than the actual content of gold. The 3 rd respondent arrived

at the conclusion that the dispute is civil in nature only because of

the fact that the petitioner came to know about the above

discrepancy after melting it. The manipulations as highlighted in

the complaint would come to know only upon melting the gold.

Therefore, I am of the view that merely because of that reason, the

same cannot be treated as civil nature. Therefore, this matter has

to be investigated by the police. In such circumstances, this writ

petition is disposed of directing the 2 nd respondent to ensure that

appropriate action is taken on Ext.P3 and to conduct necessary

investigation.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE DG/8.7.22

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 63/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.04.2021

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.10.2021

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.10.2021

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.10.2021