Disposed

Varghese Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2017WP(C)/683/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, a company managing director sought directions from the High Court directing various police officers to inquire into complaints filed against a former employee alleging intimidation and false allegations affecting business operations. The Court found no fault with the matter being pending investigation and issued directions to police chiefs to examine the complaints and proceed

What did the court decide?

Directed the respective District Police Chiefs to enquire into complaints filed against the ninth respondent and take necessary steps in law if criminal activities are found; petitioner to move magist

Varghese Jose Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/18TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 683 of 2017 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

VARGHESE JOSE.T., MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEW TRICHUR GROUP OF COMPANIES, NEW TRICHUR TOWERS, KANDASSAN KADAVU, THRISSUR 680 613

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ SRI.BIJITH S.KHAN SMT.E.S.SONI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, KERALA GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

¶12

THRISSUR, OFFICE OF THE IG OF POLICE, THRISSUR RANGE, THRISSUR 680 001.

¶13

3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD 678 001.

¶14

4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THRISSUR RURAL, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS OF POLICE (RURAL), THRISSUR 680001.

¶15

5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THRISSUR TOWN, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDET OF POLICE, (THRISSUR TOWN), TRISSUR 680001.

¶16

WP(C).No. 683 of 2017 (I)

¶17

6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR 680004.

¶18

7. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTHIKADU POLICE STATION, VALAPADU 680567.

¶19

8. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VALAPADU POLICE STATION, VALAPADU 680567.

¶20

9. C.SUGUNAPALAN, S/O.KUNJAYYAPPAN, POYYARA VEEDU, MANAKODI P.O., ARIMPOOR, THRISSUR 680620.

¶21

R1-R8 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S.KANNAN R9 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAIN

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-03-2017, THE COURT ON 09-03-2017, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

SKG

¶24

WP(C).No. 683 of 2017 (I)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

P1	COPY OF THE 13.5.2016	COMPLAINT	OF THE PETITIONER DATED
P2	COPY OF THE 12.8.2016	COMPLAINT	OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT DATED
P3	COPY OF THE 13.7.2016	COMPLAINT	OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT DATED
P4	COPY OF THE DATED 00.9.2	LETTER OF 016	THE REGISTER OF COMPANIES
P5	COPY OF THE DATED 13.11	F.I.R. IN .2016	CRIME NO. 2091/2016
P6	COPY OF THE DATED 12.11.	F.I.R IN 2016	CRIME NO. 2388/16
P7	COPY OF THE DATED 22.12.	COMPLAINT 2016	OF THE PETITIONER
P8	COPY OF THE DATED 22.12.	COMPLAINT 2016	OF THE PETITIONER
P9	COPY OF THE	COMPLAINT	OF THE PETITIONER DATED NIL
P10	COPY OF THE DATED 22.12.	COMPLAINT 2016	FILED BY THE PETITIONER
P11	COPY OF THE DATED 19.12.	COMPLAINT 2016	FILED BY THE PETITIONER
P12	COPY OF THE DATED 29.07.	COMPLAINT 2016	FILED BY THE PETITIONER
P13	COPY OF THE 29.07.2016	FILED BY	THE PETITIONER DATED
P14	COPY OF TE C DATED 3.8.20	OMPLAINT 16	FILED BY THE PETITIONER
P15	COPY OF THE DATED 08.07.	COMPLAINT 2016	FILED BY THE PETITIONER
P16 SKG	COPY OF THE DATED 27.12.	FIR IN CR 2016	IME NO. 2287/2016

¶28

WP(C).No. 683 of 2017 (I)

¶29

P17 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN OS NO. 6730/2016 DATED 21.12.2016 P18 COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE WIFE OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL P19 COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL P20 COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL P21 COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶31

---------------------NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

SKG

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶36

W.P.(C). NO. 683 OF 2017

¶37

Dated this the 09^th day of March, 2017

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The directions sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition is to direct respondents 1 to 8 to take appropriate action in the complaints filed by the petitioner against the ninth respondent enabling the petitioner to conduct his business without intimidation from the ninth respondent to the petitioner and his staff. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

¶40

Petitioner is a stake holder in various companies engaged in financial business registered under the Companies Act. The ninth respondent was appointed by the petitioner as an enquiry officer for conducting enquiry about the financial background of the prospective customers of the petitioner seeking loans. In the guise of the enquiry ninth respondent started collecting huge amounts as commission and filing false reports about the financial background of the customers thereby causing

¶41

W.P.(C). NO. 683 OF 2017 2

¶42

huge loss to the petitioner. Thereupon petitioner terminated his service as an enquiry officer after completion of 2¹ /2 years with the company. Thereupon ninth respondent filed a complaint before the District Labour Officer seeking his reinstatement which was not considered in his favour and the matter was referred to the Labour Court. Being annoyed by the situation ninth respondent started filing complaints against the petitioner before various police stations, police officers, Income Tax Department, Reserve Bank of India etc., etc.,. It is also stated that complaints are also submitted before the Registrar of Companies, various Panchayats etc.,. According to the petitioner about 45 complaints were filed before various authorities and in all the complaints investigations were conducted and the complaints were closed finding that there is no substance. Thereafter, ninth respondent started intimidating the petitioner and his staff by affixing posters, spreading false informations about the functioning of the companies of the petitioner including the allegation that the companies are

¶43

W.P.(C). NO. 683 OF 2017 3

¶44

functioning without any proper license or registration. That apart it is contended, rumors are spread that the companies are about to be closed because of the interference of the authorities as the companies are functioning illegally, prompting the customers from withdrawing their deposit.

¶45

That apart it is submitted that petitioner filed three petitions for defamation against the ninth respondent and an original suit before the Munsiff Court, Thrissur seeking to restrain him from publishing any false statements against the petitioner's companies. Three cases filed for defamation have been accepted to the files of the Magistrate Court and in the Original Suit an interim injunction has been granted. According to the petitioner thereafter, the ninth respondent is acting more vigorously including physical intimidations employed on the petitioner and his staff. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted several complaints before the police officers namely respondents 2 to 8 and in one case FIR is registered incorporating offence under Section 506 and other provisions of the Indian Penal

¶46

W.P.(C). NO. 683 OF 2017 4

¶47

Code. But except registering an FIR no action whatsoever has been taken by the police in the various complaints filed by the petitioner pointing about the illegal activities of the ninth respondent. Exts. P7 to P15 are complaints filed by the petitioner which are pending before various police authorities. It is also contended that Ext.P18 to P21 are the notices published by the ninth respondent either directly or otherwise. Inspite of all the earnest efforts of the petitioner, respondents are not taking any action and thus seeking appropriate direction to respondents 2 to 8 this writ petition is filed.

¶48

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleading put forth by the respective parties.

¶49

Even though notice by Special Messenger to the ninth respondent was ordered and served, there is no appearance. Therefore, I am proceeding to consider the contention put forth by the petitioner after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

¶50

W.P.(C). NO. 683 OF 2017 5

¶51

The tenor and terms of the contentions raised by the petitioner are all purely based on factual circumstances which are to be enquired into by the respective police officers after identifying the exact accusation, criminal in nature. However if the ninth respondent is indulging himself in criminal activities, the police officers are duty bound to exercise the power vested on them under the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as in the manual provided for the purpose. The complaint voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that inspite of pointing out criminal activities carried out by the ninth respondent, the police officers are mere onlookers and thereby causing lot of prejudice to the petitioner and his staff and the business activities carried on by the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the subject matter is being enquired into by the police and if the ninth respondent, as alleged by the petitioner is committing any illegal activities warranting exercise of powers by the police officers, the same will be done in accordance with law.

¶52

W.P.(C). NO. 683 OF 2017 6

¶53

Taking note of the respective submissions made across the Bar, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions to the respondent police officers. From the pleadings and documents filed, it is evident, petitioner has submitted complaints before various police officers in Thrissur as well as Palakkad Districts. Therefore, the respective Police Chief in charge of the said Districts are directed to do the necessary to enquire into the complaints received from the petitioner against ninth respondent and take necessary steps if any criminal activities as alleged are committed by the ninth respondent and proceed, in accordance with law.

¶54

The petitioner will also be at liberty to move suitable applications before the Magistrates of the competent jurisdiction invoking the rights conferred under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A report shall

¶55

be filed to this Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment explaining the developments that has taken place pursuant to the

¶56

W.P.(C). NO. 683 OF 2017 7

¶57

directions issued above, through the Office of the Advocate

¶58

General.

¶59

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶60

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶61

DCS

Varghese Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varghese Jose v. State of Kerala

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

Francina Vs the District Collector

Sri.Ananthasayanam K Vs the Divisional Railway Manager

G.Somarajan Vs the State of Kerala

Sheeja Thomas Vs Sri K Premanadan

Ali.K.K Vs the Union of India

Somin Abraham Vs State Bank of India