BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:
18. 04/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.2157 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 M/s.Adam and Eve Aqua Food Products, Rep. by its Managing Partner, M.Bilaldeen ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy. 2.The Inspector of Police, G.A.Puram Police Station, Trichy District. 3.Mr.Muthukumar, Now working as Inspector of Police, G.A.Puram Police Station, Trichy District. 4.L.Anwar 5.I.Nazeer Ahmed ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein from in anyway interfering in the partnership firm of the petitioner either directly or indirectly at the instance of the fourth and fifth respondents. !For Petitioners ... Mr.Veera Kathiravan ^For Respondents 1 and 2... Mr.V.Pandi, Government Advocate For Respondents 3 and 5 ... No Appearance For Respondent No.4 ... Mr.N.Dilip Kumar ******** :ORDER ******* The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus, to restrain the police authorities from interfering in a partnership dispute relating to the management of a Mineral Water Unit at Trichy.
2. The petitioner is stated to be the Managing Partner of M/s.Adam & Eve Aqua Food Products, Trichy, a firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act. The petitioner holds 75% of the share capital and the son of the fourth respondent holds the remaining 25%. The partnership firm purchased 26 acres of property in Survey Nos.98/2C and 88/2C at Sirugamani Village, Srirangam. The said property was previously used for producing mineral water under the brand name 'Thailammal Mineral Water Foods'. The property was purchased by the firm vide document No.1100/2011. Thereafter, the firm commenced production. However, there was no profit from the business carried out by the firm. The said fact was known to the fourth respondent.
3. While the matters stood thus, the police started harassing the petitioner at the instance of the fifth respondent, who is a close relative of the fourth respondent and who earlier functioned as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is the grievance of the petitioner that at the instance of the fifth respondent, the third respondent started harassing by summoning him to the police station and called upon him to settle the issue with the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner, the third respondent has no right to interfere in a civil dispute. Since the third respondent continued to call the petitioner to the police station under the guise of settling the matter, he has come up with this Writ Petition to restrain the said officer form interfering in a pure civil dispute.
4. The fourth respondent filed a very detailed counter-affidavit, narrating the background facts. According to the fourth respondent, the deponent is his close relative. However, he is not the Managing Partner of the firm. The firm has already been dissolved. It was a Firm at Will. The fourth respondent is permanently residing at Andersonpet, K.G.Fields, Kolar District, Karnataka and he is running various educational institutions. The fourth respondent, believing the words of Bilaldeen, the petitioner herein, advanced substantial amount for purchasing the land. The parties have prepared a partnership deed by giving 75% of share to the son of fourth respondent and 25% to Thiru.Bilaldeen and he was shown as the working partner. The original partnership deed dated 12 May, 2011 was modified by another partnership deed dated 11 September, 2011 and signed on 13 September, 2011. The property originally owned by Mr.K.Rajaram, was purchased by the son of fourth respondent and Mr.Bilaldeen, as per sale deed dated 06 May, 2011. Since misunderstanding arose between the partners, it was decided to put an end to the partnership business. Mr.Bilaldeen, the petitioner agreed to receive a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim. He agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the son of fourth respondent. In spite of the said agreement, the petitioner issued a lawyer notice to the fourth respondent pleading ignorance of the earlier transaction. According to the fourth respondent, the very Writ Petition was an attempt in collusion with the police to see that the major partner is prevented from entering the property owned by the firm.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, besides the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of police authorities.
6. The petitioner projected a case of police harassment, so as to give a cause of action to file a Writ Petition. The documents produced by the fourth respondent clearly shows that there was a partnership dispute between the petitioner and the son of the fourth respondent. There is nothing on record to show that the police have interfered in the matter and called upon the petitioner to settle the issue with the fourth respondent. Merely because the fifth respondent earlier functioned as a Deputy Superintendent of Police, and a relative of the fourth respondent, it cannot be said that the police made an attempt to mediate the matter and on failure, threatened the petitioner to come to the terms suggested by the fourth respondent. In fact, Thiru.Bilaldeen, deponent of the affidavit himself is the elder brother of the son-in-law of the fourth respondent. The parties are, therefore, close relatives. The petitioner has come up with certain uncharitable remarks against the police officer, without any iota of evidence.
7. This Court has been witnessing several such Writ Petitions filed by the parties to various lis with ulterior motives. By filing Writ Petitions under the guise of police interference in civil matters and keeping the matter pending, the unscrupulous litigants purchase time. Merely because the matter is civil in nature, it cannot be said that there is no element of criminality involved in such matters. The police have got a right to take action under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. The so called interference and harassment by the police is now taken as a shelter rather a cause of action to file Writ Petitions of this nature. The counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent clearly shows that the petitioner abused the process of Court and wanted his terms to be settled. The Court is not the venue to wash the dirty linen. The petitioner made a deliberate attempt to drag on the proceedings related to partnership dispute. This Writ Petition is not an exception.
8. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs. SML To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy. 2.The Inspector of Police, G.A.Puram Police Station, Trichy District.