Petitioner challenged a police notice requiring personal presence, arguing documents were produced via agent and the underlying dispute regarding sale deed forgery is a civil matter. Court dismissed the writ, finding no harassment and declining interference in police investigation.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1941
WP(C).No.13947 of 2019
PETITIONER:
K.T.P KUNHAMOO@AMOO, AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.HAMZA, K.T.P.HOUSE, KAKKADPURAM P.O., KANNUR670305.
BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYABAL MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
3 ZACHRIAH @ SHAMSUDHEEN, ALAGANANDA RESIDENCY, CHUNGAM DESOM, AYYANTHOLE TALUK, THRISSUR-680004.
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.FRIJO
SR.GP.SRI.P.P.THAJUDHEEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.13947 of 2019 2
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
The petitioner is aggrieved with the notice issued at Ext P5 by the Police. The petitioner submits that though the documents required in the notice, were produced before the Police through an agent, the Police is requiring the presence of the petitioner himself.
documents produced in the Writ Petition that the deeds were of the year 1997 and the petitioner had at that point itself effected mutation and was regularly paying
WP(C).No.13947 of 2019 3
tax from them. The 3rd respondent cannot at this stage raise a challenge against the sale and if at all it could be done it is a purely civil matter. The Police cannot involve themselves in such matters is the compelling argument.
Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the third respondent.
presence of any person it would be possible by issuing a
notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. Considering the
WP(C).No.13947 of 2019 4
allegations raised it is not proper for us to cause interference to the investigation on the imagined ground of harassment. We also do not attach any credence to
the contention raised on the sale deeds since what would be relevant is the possession, especially since the allegation is of a fraud practiced by forging the signature of the 3rd respondent. The pleadings of the petitioner also indicate that he was advised not to appear in person, since there was a chance of his arrest. The said apprehension cannot be redressed in a petition under Article 226 styled as one filed against police harassment. In the above circumstances, we are not convinced that there is any police harassment which has to be prevented by us invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction. We decline discretion and dismiss the writ petition. No order as to costs.
K.VINOD CHANDRAN,
JUDGE
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
cms
WP(C).No.13947 of 2019 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ONE AND THE SAME CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MADAYI VILLAGE OFFICE BEARING NO.33453580 DATED 27.06.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3666/1997 DATED 14.11.1997. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3667/1997 DATED 14.11.1997. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT EXTRACT BEARING NO.2018/54597/07 DATED 13.07.2018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT EXTRACT BEARING NO.2018/54598/17 DATED 13.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.5885373 DATED 14.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.KL07041306710/2018 DATED 13.07.2018. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.10698/18 DATED 21.08.2018.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.2639/2018 DATED 17.09.2018. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CAVEAT DATED 06.08.2018. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.11706/2019 DATED 12.04.2019. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
XHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT DATED 25-03-2019. /TRUE COPY/ cms P.S.TO JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere to prevent alleged police harassment in issuing a notice requiring personal presence.
Whether the dispute regarding forgery of signature in sale deeds falls within the jurisdiction of the police.
Whether the requirement of personal attendance by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C is justified by the allegations raised.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
(Unspecified)Referred¶30
2 provisions across 1 enactments
K.T.P Kunhamoo@Amoo
The State of Kerala
The Sub Inspector of Police, Trissur West
Zachriah @ Shamsudheen
K.Vinod Chandran
V.G.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
