Kerala High Court
Titus.P.Chacko vs The Superintendent Of Police on 5 July, 2013
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan, K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
WP(C).No. 26112 of 2013 (L)
----------------------------
PETITIONERS :
-----------
1. TITUS.P.CHACKO, AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.P.M.CHACKO, PUTHUPPADIYIL HOUSE, WARD NO.IX
NELLIMATTOM VIA, THALAKODE P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2. LISA P.TITUS, AGED 46 YEARS
W/O.TITUS P.CHACKO, PUTHUPPADIYIL HOUSE, WARD NO.IX
NELLIMATTOM VIA, THALAKODE P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
RESPONDENTS :
-----------
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
(RURAL), ALUVA , PIN 683 101.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
POTHANIKKAD, ERNAKULAM DISRICT, PIN 686 671
3. ABY ABRAHAM @ GEORGE,
S/O.ABRAHAM, VETTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, POTHANIKKAD KARA,
POTHANIKKAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT , PIN 686 671.
4. KURIACHAN, PACHAMPARAMBIL,
POTHANIKKAD KARA, POTHANIKKAD VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT , PIN 686 671.
5. GIRISH KUMAR,
CIVIL POLICE OFFICER, POTHANIKKAD POLICE STATION,
POTHANIKKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT , PIN 686 671.
R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.MOHAMMED SHAH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BP
WP(C).No. 26112 of 2013 (L)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE IST
PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT
DATED 5/7/2013.
EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE IST
PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT
DATED 19/7/2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
BP
S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 26112 of 2013
==================
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2013
J U D G M E N T
S.Siri Jagan, J.:
The petitioners are man and wife. The 4th respondent is the brother-in-law of the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioners, they are engaged in illegal money lending business without obtaining any licence. For the purpose of the business of the 1st petitioner, the petitioners obtained a loan from the 3rd respondent. Amounts are due from the 1st petitioner to the 3rd respondent in repayment of the said loan. The petitioners now submit that the 2nd respondent is harassing the petitioners for paying the balance amounts due to the 3rd respondent. The further contention of the petitioners is that although the petitioners filed Exts.P1 and P2 before the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aluva, the same has not been considered yet. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ orders or direction commanding the respondents 2 and 5 or any w.p.c.26112/13 - : 2 :-
other police officers under the 1st respondent not to harass or intimidate the petitioners for the purpose of extracting amounts demanded by the moneylenders, respondents 3 and 4.
(ii) Issue appropriate writ orders or directions commanding the respondents 1 and 2 make proper investigation upon Ext.P1 and P2 complaints made by the petitioners and take further steps to get back the documents illegally procured by the 3rd respondent or stolen by the 4th respondent.
(iii) Direct the 1st respondent to take appropriate action against the respondents 2 and 5 who are harassing, threatening, and intimidating the petitioners in collusion with the respondents 3 and 4 for extracting the amounts illegally demanded by the 3rd respondent."
2. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement, which reads thus:
"1. The petitioner filed the above writ petition seeking direction to respondents 2 and 5 not to harass or intimidate the petitioners for the purpose of extracting amounts demanded by the money lenders and who are arrayed as respondent No. 3 & 4. The allegation raised by the petitioner in Paragraph 5 of the writ petition is that the 2nd respondent instructed the 1st petitioner with sufficient threat that unless the amount received from the 3rd respondent is repaid together with interest at the agreed rate, that he would take proper action against the petitioner. It was also alleged that the 2nd respondent and certain other constables in the police station compelled the 1st petitioner to sign on a book maintained in the police station recording settlement of the dispute contrary to the will of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner states that he was compelled to do so under threat and coercion. It is also alleged in Paragraph 6 that the Constable by name Girish Kumar, working under the respondents 1 and 2 started to threaten the 1st petitioner through telephone that if the amount is not paid within time non-bailable offence will be registered.
2. The allegations raised in paragraph 5 to 8 is hereby denied by this respondent. This respondent or his officers never harassed the petitioners and never threatened them. As a matter of fact on 12.09.2013, the 3rd respondent filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural for initiating criminal action against the petitioners. The above complaint was registered as IAPS No.184960/2013 at the office of the Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural and forwarded the same to the Circle Inspector of Police, Kalloorkadu. For enquiry it was further w.p.c.26112/13 - : 3 :-
forwarded to this respondent for initiated (sic) appropriate actions. The above complaint was received at the office of this respondent on 10.10.2013. The above petition was registered in the petition register as petition No.101/SPTN/ 2013. After registering the petition in the petition register as part of enquiry the complainant and the petitioners herein were summoned before the office of this respondent. The petitioners are not inclined to come to the police station and the allegations that the 1st petitioners sign in a book maintained in the police station is absolutely baseless. The 1st petitioners was contacted only as part of the enquiry in the petitioner and never threatened or harassed the 1st or 2nd petitioner. After completing the enquiry when it was found that there is a prima facie reason for registering the crime, this respondent registered crime as crime No.738/13 under section 406, 420 and 34 IPC. The petitioners are now absconding and the presence of the accused persons is highly necessary for the investigation. The petitioner filed the above writ petition anticipating the registration of the crime and also to interdict the investigation in the matter."
3. The petitioners now confine relief for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P1 and P2 expeditiously. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is no record in the office of the 1st respondent of having received Exts.P1 and P2.
Having heard both sides, we are of opinion that the 1st respondent can consider Exts.P1 and P2 as obtaining in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P1 and P2 as obtaining in this writ petition, as expeditiously as possible. However, we make it clear that this shall not stand in the way of the 2nd respondent continuing investigation of the w.p.c.26112/13 - : 4 :-
crime registered. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance.
Sd/-
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Sd/-
sdk+ K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge