Dismissed

Sugesh Chandran v. Commissioner of Police

Kerala HC7 Jun 2019WP(C)/9575/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition by a businessman against police and private individuals, holding that allegations of financial disputes and demands for investment returns involve civil remedies, not judicial review. The court ruled that such monetary disputes over private transactions are devoid of writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking police protection and protection of civil rights was dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sugesh Chandran Vs Commissioner of Police — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No. 9575 of 2019

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

SUGESH CHANDRAN

¶10

AGED 32 YEARS IX-222,RAJAGIRI VALLEY,INFO PARK EXPRESS WAY,KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ERNAKULAM CITY 682030.

¶14

2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, INFOPARK POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM 682030

¶15

3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, INFOPARK POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶16

4 P.B.ASHRAF, PUTHIYEDATH(H),MUTTAM, KALAMASSERY,COCHIN- 683104

¶17

BY ADVS. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD SMT.ANITHA M.N. (EKM)

¶18

ADV. P.P. THAJUDHEEN (SR.PP.)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 9575 of 2019 2

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Arun, J.

¶23

The petitioner, a businessman, is alleged to have entrusted the construction of his commercial building with the 4^th respondent, who admittedly is the petitioner’s friend. It is alleged that in order to facilitate the construction, an amount of Rs.30 lakhs was handed over to the 4^th respondent in the year 2016. That, during the course of construction the 4^th respondent demanded more amounts and thus a total amount of Rs.48,54,280/- was collected by the 4^th respondent. It is alleged that the construction did not progress as promised by the 4^th respondent and the petitioner was compelled to evaluate the construction so far carried out with the help of civil engineers. On such evaluation it was found that only Rs.23 lakhs had been expended out of the Rs.48,54,280/- paid to the 4^th respondent. It is alleged that the petitioner demanded for return of the balance unutilized amount and thereupon the 4^th respondent became inimical and threatened the

¶24

WP(C).No. 9575 of 2019 3

¶25

petitioner with dire consequences.

¶26

The allegations in the Writ Petition are controverted by the 4^th respondent through his counter affidavit. The version of the 4^th respondent is that the petitioner had befriended the 4^th respondent and had enticed him into investing huge amounts in a business venture by name VAG Tune Car Retrofit. That, even though the 4^th respondent was made to believe that the new business would be a partnership venture, the petitioner clandestinely commenced the business in his own name. That, the 4^th respondent had demanded back the money invested by him and thereupon the petitioner filed false complaints before the police followed by the instant Writ Petition.

¶27

Even though both parties allege to have exchanged amounts running into lakhs of rupees, no evidence of any such transaction is produced along with Writ Petition. If there is an iota of truth in the allegations and counter allegations, then there seems to have taken place cash transactions of huge amounts, contrary to the requirement of effecting such high

¶28

WP(C).No. 9575 of 2019 4

¶29

value transactions only through banks. The pleadings would indicate that there are some monetary disputes between the parties. Those disputes are to be resolved by resorting to appropriate civil remedies and not through a writ petition seeking police protection. The Writ Petition is found to be devoid of merits and hence dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶30

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶31

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

¶32

cms

¶33

WP(C).No. 9575 of 2019 5

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION BY REGISTERED POST DATED 03/07/2018.

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 04/07/2018.

¶38

RESPONDENTS EXTS NIL

¶39

/TRUE COPY/

¶40

P.S.TO JUDGE cms

Sugesh Chandran v. Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugesh Chandran v. Commissioner 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

Suhara, Vs the District Police Chief

Leelamma Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

K.Rukhiya, Vs District Superintendent of Police

Biyyathu Chalil Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

The Principal, Kmct Medical College Vs the Additiional Director General of Police

Kalamassery General Workers Union Vs Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board