ALEX THANIPPARA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a Professor of St. Thomas College, Pala is aggrieved of the atrocious action stated as being pursued by respondents 3 and 4, to whom some amounts are admittedly to be paid by the petitioner, in connection with some money transactions. It is conceded that, by virtue of the pressure of circumstances, the petitioner had to borrow some amounts from the third respondent, through the 4th respondent, but the amount could not be repaid on time, because of some unfortunate circumstances. It is stated that the petitioner has pleaded for time till 31st December, 2017 to satisfy the due amount.

(2.) Without any regard to the above request, the third and fourth respondents had trespassed into the property of the petitioner, where his wife, who is a teacher and mother-in-law are living, virtually trying to assault them.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader submits that, at the time of filing the writ petition, no complaint was in fact pending before the Police and that in the course of time, a complaint was received by post. Immediately, the petitioner was contacted over telephone and though he responded initially, he did not co- operate subsequently, submits the learned Government Pleader.