Dismissed

Vivek Agarwal v. the Sub Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Palakkad

Kerala HC17 Jun 2019WP(C)/14262/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought police protection alleging threats after a money dispute led to cheque collection. Court dismissed the writ as police protection was unwarranted in a money dispute where the petitioner failed to implead a key party, noting the writ appeared designed to set up a defence for anticipated cheque cases.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vivek Agarwal Vs the Sub Inspector of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.14262 of 2019

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

VIVEK AGARWAL AGED 44 YEARS S/O.K.K.AGARWALLA, E-7, 7TH FLOOR, BUILTECH RESIDENCY, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD-678013.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD-678013.

¶13

2 MR.RETHAN LAL, AGED 64 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,M/S.LAL STEELS PVT.LTD. NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KANJIKODE,PALAKKAD-678623.

¶14

3 MR.SUNNY, AGED 30 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,M/S.LAL STEELS PVT.LTD. NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KANJIKODE,PALAKKAD-678623.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI P.P THAJUDHEEN SR GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C) No.14262 of 2019

JUDGMENT

V.G.ARUN, J.

The petitioner is the Managing Director of a steel manufacturing company by name Southern Ispat and Energy Pvt. Ltd. Respondents 2 and 3 are the Directors of the company by name M/s. Lal Steels Pvt. Ltd, engaged in the business of manufacture of structural steel bars. According to the petitioner, he had introduced one Rajesh Khetan, the proprietor of Sai Steel, to the second respondent. Thereafter, Rajesh Khetan had business transaction with M/s. Lal Steels. Respondents 2 and 3 demanded that the petitioner should pay an amount of Rs.37,35,000/-, which according to respondents 2 and 3 is the amount due from Rajesh Khetan for the steel purchased from M/s.Lal Steels. The petitioner alleges that on

¶24

W.P.(C) No.14262 of 2019

¶25

¶26

14.4.2019, respondents 2 and 3 along with certain others came to the residence of the petitioner and collected four cheques from the petitioner under threat and coercion. The petitioner submits that he got so scared by the incident that he did not divulge the incident even to his family members. Later, when the petitioner told his family members about the incident, he was advised to lodge a complaint and accordingly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1. It is the further case of the petitioner that when respondents 2 and 3 came to know about Ext.P1 complaint, it was threatened that the petitioner would be done away with if he is seen in Palakkad again. Thereupon, Ext.P2 representation was submitted seeking police protection and the writ petition filed alleging inaction on the part of the police.

¶27

A counter affidavit has been submitted by the third

¶28

W.P.(C) No.14262 of 2019

¶29

¶30

respondent stating that the person named Rajesh Khetan is a benami of the petitioner and that the petitioner himself is running the business in the name of Sai Steels. That, amount of Rs.2.5 Crores is due from the petitioner's Company Southern Ispat and Rs.44 lakhs is due personally from the petitioner. That after repeated demands, the petitioner had issued four cheques in discharge of the amounts due to M/s.Lal Steels and had thereafter filed the writ petition with the sole intention of setting up a defence in the cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, which would be filed against the petitioner on the cheques issued by him getting dishonoured. It is pointed out that though the petitioner has set up a case that amounts are due to M/s.Lal Steels from Rajesh Khetan, that person has not been impleaded as respondent in the writ petition. It is submitted that the

¶31

W.P.(C) No.14262 of 2019

¶32

¶33

complaint regarding an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 14.4.2019, was filed only on 14.5.2019, which, incidentally is a day prior to the date of the first cheque issued by the petitioner, ie; 15.5.2019. it is submitted that neither respondents 2 and 3 or any of their men have threatened the petitioner and that, they intend to recover the amounts due from the petitioner by resorting to legal remedies.

¶34

The learned Senior Government Pleader submits

¶35

that there exists no situation warranting police protection and that according to the instruction received from the police, the petitioner is presently residing at Mumbai.

¶36

From the facts and circumstances discernible from the writ petition and the counter affidavit, it is clear that this writ petition has been filed in an attempt to set up a defence for the cases which may be filed against by respondents 2 and

¶37

W.P.(C) No.14262 of 2019

¶38

¶39

3 based on the cheques issued by the petitioner. The dispute between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 based on their alleged money transaction has to be resolved through the established process of law. There is no warrant to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, to direct the police to grant protection to one of the parties in a money dispute, without anything more, lest it be used to frustrate the claim of the other. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, the fact that the petitioner had deliberately omitted to array Rajesh Khetan as a party to the writ petition casts serious doubt on the story put forth by the petitioner. Hence, we find that the petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting an order of police protection. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. We make it clear that we have not spoken on the money transactions between

¶40

W.P.(C) No.14262 of 2019

¶41

¶42

the parties nor expressed any opinion on the rival claims set

¶43

up. No order as to costs.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶46

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶47

Scl/17.06

¶48

W.P.(C) No.14262 of 2019

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF FIR DATED 14.05.2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Vivek Agarwal v. the Sub Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vivek Agarwal v. the Sub Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Diamond Polymers Vs T.a.Asharaf

Kakkunnath Bhagavati Kshethram Trust, Vs the District Police Chief

Joshy Chandy, Vs the District Police Chief

Cycco Marathakkara Vs the Sub Inspector of Police,Ollur Police Station

Marikar Automobiles and Services Private Limited Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Sudheer Vs Sajeena @ Sakna