Vinod Chandran, J. The petitioner is aggrieved with the harassment allegedly perpetrated by the 2nd respondent by frequently summoning the petitioner to the police station. The petitioner contends that the 2 nd respondent is involved in a purely civil dispute, namely, financial transaction between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5. The petitioner submits that he had availed of finance from respondents
Vinod Chandran, J. The petitioner is aggrieved with the harassment allegedly perpetrated by the 2nd respondent by frequently summoning the petitioner to the police station. The petitioner contends that the 2 nd respondent is involved in a purely civil dispute, namely, financial transaction between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5. The petitioner submits that he had availed of finance from respondents 3 to 5 on the strength of cheques and promissory notes. On settling the aforesaid amount, he had sought for return of the cheques and promissory notes, then the party respondents demanded more money. The 2nd respondent is now used to coerce the petitioner for paying more amount, is the contention.
2. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that there is no such coercion on the part of any person and the petitioner was summoned on a complaint filed by the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent had approached the WP(C) 40385/2017 2nd respondent with a complaint contending that the petitioner along with his friend is threatening the life of the 5 th respondent for having demanded amounts from the petitioner.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 submits that the complaint was only to protect the life of the 5 th respondent and there was no request to the police to interfere in the financial transactions. It is also submitted by respondents 3 to 5 that for recovery of money and prosecution under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, appropriate proceedings have been initiated before the appropriate forums. We do not think that there is any reason to stop the police from enquiring into the complaint of the 5 th respondent, especially since there is a threat of life alleged. The petitioner would co-operate with the investigation and we, hence, dismiss the writ petition. No costs. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Sd/- ASHOK MENON Judge