RASHEED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is accused in Crime No. 21 of 2014 of the Pothanikkadu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294(b), 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 118(b) of the Kerala Police Act, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.

(2.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that as per version of the de facto complainant, on 28.03.2013 the petitioner threatened him over phone and following that, trespassed into his house breaking open the door. Petitioner and family are forcibly staying there.

(3.) HEARING both sides it would appear that the petitioner is trying to enforce a right of mortgage over the immovable property. But, as per the law no mortgage over immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/ - could be created or enforced except by a registered instrument and any transaction otherwise would not affect the property. The petitioner says that he will vacate the building only if the entire amount is paid. May be, the Division Bench of this Court has passed order concerning police harassment and a civil suit also is pending. Now, I am to consider whether the discretionary jurisdiction should be exercised in favour of the petitioner?