Disposed

M.J.Sebastian v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC11 Aug 2010WP(C)/24662/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged interference by police officers in a cheque-bounce dispute and alleged harassment. The court recorded submissions denying alleged coercion to withdraw the case and closed the writ petition, advising the petitioner to seek remedies against the crime registered.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; petitioner directed to work out remedy against crime registered against him before appropriate forum.

M.J.Sebastian Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 24662 of 2010(G)

PETITIONER:

M.J.SABASTIAN, S/O.ULAHANNA, NAVAMKULANGARAYIL HOUSE, THALAYOLAPARAMB P.O.,VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, THALAYOLAPARAMB - 686605.

¶14

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY.682314.

¶15

SHAJI JOSEPH, ARACKAL VEEDU, KULAYATTHIKARA P.O.,682315, THOTTARA BHAGOM, (ARAYANKAVU)ERNAKULAM.

¶16

MARGRET SHAJI, ARACKAL VEEDU, KULAYATTIKARA,(P.O)THOTTARA BHAGOM,(ARAYANKAVU) ERNAKULAM. PIN-682315.

¶17

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VAIKOM-686141.

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1,2 & 5

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶20

FOLLOWING:

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

W.P.(C).No. 24662 of 2010 G

¶24

- - - - Dated this the 11th day of August, 2010

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Joseph, J.

¶27

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶28

“1) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere in the dispute pending between the petitioner and the third respondent involved in Exts.P1 and P2.

¶29

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 not to harass the petitioner and thereby to compel him to withdraw O.S.No. 239 of 2010 pending before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam and complaint C.C. 188 of 2010 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom.”

¶30

W.P.(C).No. 24662 of 2010

¶31

Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The third respondent has borrowed Rs. 3 lakhs from the petitioner. A cheque was issued by the third respondent for repayment of the amount. The same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The petitioner filed a complaint before the J.F.C.M., Vaikom. The third respondent entered appearance. Thereafter the wife of the third respondent filed a petition before the superior police officer and respondents 1 and 2 have interfered in the dispute pending before the Court in order to harass the petitioner and thereby to compel him to withdraw the case filed by him. Respondents 1 and 2 directed the petitioner to appear before them, failing which it is threatened that case will be charged against him for non-bailable offence.

¶32

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the police will not compel the petitioner to withdraw the case. It is submitted that the said allegation is not correct. According to him, Crime No. 700 of 2010 of Mulamthuruthy Police Station has been registered against the petitioner under Section 420 I.P.C. and under the

¶33

W.P.(C).No. 24662 of 2010

¶34

¶35

Money Lenders Act. It is submitted that investigation in accordance with law alone will be conducted and there will not be compelling the petitioner to withdraw the case.

¶36

We record the above submissions and close this Writ Petition.

¶37

We make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy

¶38

as against the crime registered against him before appropriate forum.

¶39

Judge

¶40

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge

¶41

M.J.Sebastian v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.J.Sebastian v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Mammi Haji Vs Si of Police,Thirurangadi

M/S.Orma Marbles Vs Dist.Superintendent of Police

R.Jyotheendran Vs State of Kerala

Bhavani Raman Vs the Supdt of Police

Thomas Jofin Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Vs the Superintendent of Police Thrissur &