Back
2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27434
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
R.BASANT, K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ
C M ANSAR – Appellant
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 1004/2011
The High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 to prevent harassment by state authorities when disputes arise between individuals and entities.
Headnote:
Article 226 - Writ Petition - Constitution of India - Sections List: Article 226 - It addresses the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue directions, orders, or writs to enforce fundamental rights and for other purposes, highlighting the court's tendency to protect individuals from harassment by state authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners alleged harassment by police at the instigation of a finance company due to financial disputes. They sought directions from the court to prevent further harassment.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the police had stopped action on the finance company's complaint and assured that the petitioners would not be vexed or harassed. Thus, no further directions were deemed necessary.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were subjected to harassment by the police at the behest of a finance company, warranting intervention under Article 226.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the assurance from the learned Government Pleader regarding no further action against the petitioners sufficient to conclude the matter.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is allowed in part without further directions.
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 to 3 to deter them from resorting to vexatious harassment of petitioners at the instance of a financier by name Sreeram Transport Finance Company Ltd. According to the petitioners, they have availed financial facilities from the said finance company. There are disputes between them. Affluent and powerful finance company is prevailing upon the police officials to harass the petitioners, it is submitted.
2. This petition was admitted on 13.01.2011. After hearing the learned Government Pleader, we felt that respondent No.3 must be directed to file an affidavit and appear in person and explain details to the Court.
3. Today when the case is called, the 3rd respondent is personally present. An affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent reports that Ext.R3(a) complaint was received from the Branch Manager of Sreeram Transport W.P(C) No.1004 of 2011 2 Finance Company Ltd. In connection with that petition, both parties were called to the police station. The parties could not reach an amicable settlement. They wanted resolution of their disputes through court. In these circumstances, the police stopped further action on Ext.R3(a). It is undertaken that no steps shall be taken against the petitioners on the basis of Ext.R3 (a) complaint by the finance company. The police do not propose to take any action against the petitioners and they shall not in any way be vexed or harassed. It is submitted that the petitioners were called to the police station in connection with the enquiry in Ext.R3(a) complaint. It is incorrect to say that the petitioners were vexed or harassed by the police officials. The 3rd respondent is present. The learned Government Pleader undertakes that no further action shall be taken on Ext.R3(a) and if the presence of the petitioners is required in connection with any matter before the police, proper notice in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be issued to them.
4. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no further directions are necessary. We record the undertaking of the learned Government Pleader. We take note of the affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent.
W.P(C) No.1004 of 2011 3
5. This Writ Petition is allowed in part to the above extent.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
rtr/
