Kerala High Court
Praveen K.J vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 23 November, 2016
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/4TH KARTHIKA, 1939
WP(C).No. 33418 of 2017 (B)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
PRAVEEN K.J
S/O.LATE JAYAPRAKASHAN
AGED 50 YEARS, KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
CHENTRAPINNI P.O, THRISSUR 680 687
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION
THRISSUR 680 685
2. M. JOHNSON P FERNANDEZ
HEAD OF THE KERALA OPERATION
NEIL MANAGEMENT CONSULTING, NANDANAM,
2ND FLOOR, THOUNDAYIL ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,
KOCHI 36
3. PAUL
NEIL MANAGEMENT CONSULTING,
NANDANAM, 2ND FLOOR, THOUNDAYIL ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,
KOCHI 36
4. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
R2&3 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 33418 of 2017 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
---------------------
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT TO THE
EMPLOYER OF THE COMPANY DATED 23-11-2016
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID COMMUNICATION DATED
NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
----------------------
EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION.
// TRUE COPY //
P.S. TO JUDGE
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.33418 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of October,2017
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
Petitioner has filed this writ petition complaining of police harassment. According to the petitioner, he was an employee of an establishment in Doha - Qatar. He says that the company, where he was working, had availed a loan of 1 lakh Riyal from Doha Bank at Qatar in the year 2013 and the loan was renewed thereafter. For reasons of his own, the petitioner returned to India and is now settled at his native place. He received a communication from the second respondent stating that they have been authorised to collect the amount from the petitioner. A copy of that communication is Ext.P2. In this communication, it is stated that in the event of non compliance with the notice, the Doha Bank, Qatar will instruct the Legal Department in Kerala headed by Adv. Sri.K.R.Sunil, High Court of Kerala to initiate immediate legal action W.P.(C)No.33418 of 2017 : 2 : against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the third respondent is a retired Sub Inspector of Police. He has visited the house of the petitioner and threatened him on several occasions. It is also his allegation that at the instance of the third respondent, the first respondent has summoned the petitioner and threatened and is forcing him to pay the amount that his employer owes to the Doha Bank, Qatar. Since the threat and harassment continues, the writ petition is filed.
2. We heard the counsel for the petitioner, who has reiterated the aforesaid submissions. We also heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 4.
3. Learned Government Pleader has produced a copy of the complaint made by the second respondent before the first respondent. The complaint alleges that the petitioner had availed of a loan from the Doha Bank while at Qatar and has absconded from that country. Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 reiterates the aforesaid allegation against the petitioner of his W.P.(C)No.33418 of 2017 : 3 :
having incurred a huge liability to the Doha Bank while at Qatar and committed default. It is stated that the respondents 2 and 3 are the authorised agents of the bank and that they are entitled to take such steps as are necessary for realisation of the dues.
4. Having considered the submissions made by both sides, we are of the view that if the petitioner has committed any offence punishable in terms of the penal laws of this country, it may be open to the bank to set the law in motion in accordance with the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code. As things now stand, even the counsel for the respondent have no case that anything has been done by the Bank or the party respondents in that regard. As regards the request made by the second respondent to the police is concerned, since offence, if any, was not committed within the jurisdiction of the first respondent and as the legal requirements for initiating the criminal action have not been satisfied, the police cannot take any step acting upon the complaint made. We may in this context also refer to the judgment of the W.P.(C)No.33418 of 2017 : 4 : Apex Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur and others (2007) 2 SCC 711, where it has been held thus:
"28. In conclusion, we say that we are governed by the rule of law in the country. The recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles could be done only through legal means. the banks cannot employ goondas to take possession by force."
From the claims made by the party respondents, it appears that this precisely is what has been done by the bank in this case.
Therefore, we dispose of the writ petition directing that the first respondent shall not harass the petitioner in any manner in relation to the complaint made by the respondents 2 and 3 and on the other hand, if he finds that the action of respondents 2 and 3 attract any penal provision, it shall be his duty to take necessary action in accordance with law.
sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE jes