LAWS(KER)-2020-10-529

K.A.UNNIMON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On October 20, 2020
K.A.Unnimon Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being traumatized by the constant summoning of the petitioner to the Police Station by the 2nd respondent for resolving a monetary dispute that he has with the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court with this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) To appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, the prefatory facts leading to this petition need to be briefly stated:- The petitioner states that he took the building owned by the 3rd respondent on lease in the month of January 2020 for starting a cold storage. At the time of entering into the agreement for lease, amounts were handed over to the landlord towards security. The petitioner carried out renovations to the building by expending amounts. However, he was not able to start the business as originally planned. He later surrendered the premises to the landlord. Admittedly, no amount was paid by the petitioner by way of rent for the period that the building was in his possession. The petitioner asserts that the landlord did not demand the same. However, after vacating the premises, on the premise that the landlord had filed a complaint against the petitioner, he was summoned to the police station. He states that he is being constantly pestered by the police and he was asked to clear off the rent arrears. He states that he was slapped with Ext.P2 notice issued purportedly under Sec. 41A of the Cr.P.C. calling upon him to appear before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottayam police station on 25/9/2020. According to the petitioner, the police have no role in the dispute between the landlord and tenant and according to him, issuance of Ext.P2 notice to settle a civil dispute is clearly an abuse of process. He has in the aforesaid circumstances approached this Court seeking directions.

(3.) On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the 3rd respondent had filed a complaint before the 2nd respondent alleging that some amounts were due from the petitioner. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner was summoned.