BENJAMIN JACOB Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVT.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for direction directing the third respondent not to interfere with the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the fourth respondent herein.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is running the marriage hall in the name of M/s. Vijaya Raja Thirumana Mandapam. Before Covid-19 circumstances, the fourth respondent booked the marriage hall for the marriage to be conducted to his daughter. Due to Covid-19, the marriage did not held and as such, the fourth respondent lodged a complaint before the third respondent to return back the money which was paid to the petitioner. After receipt of the amount from the fourth respondent, the petitioner paid GST and other dues to the authorities concerned. Though the petitioner is ready and willing to return back the money, after deducting the dues to the revenue officials, the fourth respondent did not accept the same. Now, the fourth respondent with the influence of the third respondent threatened the petitioner and demanded the entire money which was deposited by the fourth respondent. Therefore, the entire allegations are civil in nature and even then, the third respondent is now harassing the petitioner and demanding the petitioner to return back the entire amount. In fact the petitioner is already filed a direction petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.12759 of 2020 for not to harass. Even then, the third respondent is now interfering with the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the fourth respondent.

(3.) The learned Additional Public prosecutor submitted that on the complaint received from the fourth respondent as well as one more complaint from the other victim, they were issued C.S.R.Nos.312 and 313 of 2020 for enquiry. The petitioner was called for enquiry after issuing summons as directed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.12759 of 2020. Immediately, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition without even attending the enquiry as directed by this Court. He further submitted that the third respondent never interfered with any civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Insofar as the complaint received from the fourth respondent and another complainant, the third respondent is now conducting the enquiry.