Disposed

Roy v. the Circle Inspector of Police & Others

Kerala HC8 Jul 2010WP(C)/20741/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a direction against police harassment stemming from a civil dispute over unpaid contract payments. The respondent police officers dismissed the petition, holding that police cannot interfere in purely civil disputes unless an offence is committed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's direction against police harassment was dismissed as the matter was held to be a civil dispute.

Roy Vs the Circle Inspector of Police & Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932

¶6

WP(C).No. 20741 of 2010(P)

PETITIONER:

ROY,S/O.FRANCIS,KALLARACKAL HOUSE, KOTTANELLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM HOUSE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

HARI,PALIYATH HOUSE,KUZHOOR.P.O, MALA,THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶17

GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1&2

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶20

- - - - W.P.(C).No. 20741 of 2010 P

¶21

¶22

Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Joseph, J.

¶25

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 not to harass the petitioner.

¶26

Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. During the year 2009, the petitioner took Marble flooring works at the house of the third respondent. The work was completed as per the specification and in time. After the said work there was some disputes between the petitioner and the third respondent about the contract amount. Till this date the amount is not paid by the third respondent. It is stated that respondents 1 and 2 are harassing the petitioner under the influence of the third

¶27

¶28

W.P.(C).No. 20741 of 2010

¶29

respondent by summoning him to the police station and keeping him in the station without any reason.

¶30

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that there was a complaint filed by the third respondent in 2009 and the petitioner and third respondent have come to a settlement, where under the petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the third respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner has not kept his words and consequently the third respondent approached the police.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not agreeable for paying the amount. According to him amounts are due to the petitioner.

¶32

Naturally the police cannot interfere in a matter, which is purely a civil dispute. If the petitioner has committed an offence as made out on the basis of the complaint, the police are free to register a crime and investigate the same in accordance with law.

¶33

W.P.(C).No. 20741 of 2010

¶34

¶35

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶36

(K. M. JOSEPH)

¶37

Judge

¶38

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge

¶39

Roy v. the Circle Inspector of Police & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roy v. the Circle Inspector of Police & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Kochagasthy Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Noorudheen Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam

Shamseer.T Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Others

Febin K.Xavier Vs the S.I of Police, Puthukkadu Police Sta