POLINSYS IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court complaining about harassment by the police officials at the instance of the 4th respondent who is alleged to be very influential.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, there is a contract between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. There has allegedly been breaches by the 4th respondent in complying with the terms of the said agreement This had obliged the petitioner to direct stop payment of the three cheques issued by the petitioner to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent had initiated proceedings under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. To the notice of demand, a proper and effective reply was allegedly given and no steps were thereafter pursued under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act. Realizing the futility of proceeding under law against the petitioner, the 4th respondent is now prevailing upon the 3rd respondent to harass and vex the petitioner in an attempt to somehow settle the dispute with the 4th respondent. ACCORDING to the petitioner, he is not liable to settle the dispute. He is entitled to stand on his rights and assert that he is not willing to succumb to the illegal demands of the 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent is unnecessarily poking his nose in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to deter the 3rd respondent - a police official, from vexing and harassing the petitioner to oblige the 4th respondent.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions from respondents 1 to 3, submits that it is true that a complaint dated 10/1/11 was lodged before the Commissioner of Police by the 4th respondent. That was forwarded to the 3rd respondent by the Commissioner of Police. A crime has been registered on 29/1/11 as Crime No.223/11 of Kadavanthara Police Station, inter alia, under Sec.420 IPC. Investigation is in progress. THE petitioner, who perhaps has come to know of the complaint received by the police against him, is trying to preempt the issue by raising the bogie of police harassment. It is true that the 3rd respondent, on receipt of the complaint forwarded to him, had attempted to ascertain whether parties can harmoniously settle their disputes. But it is absolutely incorrect to say that there was any vexation or harassment emanating from the 3rd respondent against the petitioner.