M/S.Janasevana Nyayavila Bazaar PVT. LTD. vs. The District Police Chief, Kollam Rural Police - Kerala High Court, 12 February 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 23RD MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 694 of 2018(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- M/S.JANASEVANA NYAYAVILA BAZAAR PVT. LTD. HAVING OFFICE 1ST FLOOR, DOOR NO.1361, PULIYAZHIKATHU PLAZA, TRIVANDRUM ROAD, PULAMON P.O., KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691531, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAFEES. BY ADV.SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM RURAL POLICE HAVING OFFICE AT KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNICKODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. SREEDEVI S., AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CONDUCTING JANASEVANA NYAYAVILA BAZAAR PVT. LTD. FRANCHISE AT PATTAZHI IN PATHANAPURAM TALUK, RESIDING AT SREEJA BHAVAN, MALOOR COLLEGE P.O., PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. SUKU P., AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CONDUCTING JANASEVANA NYAYAVILA BAZAAR PVT. LTD. FRANCHISE AT VALIYAKOONAMBAYIKULAM JUNCTION, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT PAYATTUVEEDU, SANTHINAGAR 160-A, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. WP(C).No. 694 of 2018(J) ------------------------- 2 7. ASAD S., AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CONDUCTING JANASEVANA NYAYAVILA BAZAAR PVT. LTD. FRANCHISE AT MUTTAKAVU, NEDUMPANA, KOLLAM & RESIDING AT THADATHIL PUTHENVEEDU, KUREEPALLI, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 8. AISHA BEEVI, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, W/O.AL-AMEEN, CONDUCTING JANASEVANA NYAYAVILA BAZAAR PVT. LTD. FRANCHISE AT PUNNALA, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, RESIDING AT PALAMOOTTIL VEEDU, PUNNALA, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 9. JOHNSON, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CONDUCTING JANASEVANA NYAYAVILA BAZAAR PVT. LTD. FRANCHISE AT KADAPUZHA JUNCTION, KARALIMUKKU ROAD, WEST KALLADA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 10. SIDDIQ, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CONDUCTING JANASEVANA NYAYAVILA BAZAAR PVT. LTD. FRANCHISE AT KARALIMUKKU, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 11. ANEESH, S/O.ALI, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.29C8-1222, PAINUMMOOTTIL AND CONDUCTING JANASEVANA NYAYAVILA BAZAAR PVT.LTD. FRANCHISE, THEVALLY, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 12. HARI MOHAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, RESIDING AT PANGODU KIZHAKKEKARA VEEDU, MALOOR, PATHANAPURAM AND CONDUCTING JANASEVANA NYAYAVILA BAZAAR PVT.LTD. FRANCHISE,KADUVATHODU, NEAR PATTAZHY, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1-R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDHEEN R7,R9,R10 BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE R12 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN R12 BY ADV. SRI.JITHIN PAUL VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 694 of 2018 (J) ------------------------- APPENDIX --------- PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION 01.03.2017. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION UNDER GST. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 30.08.2017 UNDER FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT. EXHIBIT P4A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4B COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4C COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 7TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4D COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 8TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4E COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 11TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE MANAGER OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.01.2018 FILED BEFORE RESPONDENT 1 TO 4. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF PETITIONER COMPANY. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE VIDEO FOOTAGE OF THE ATTACK AND THREATS MADE BY THE 12TH RESPONDENT AND HIS HENCHMEN ON 22-12-2017 AT GODOWN WORKING IN ANGEL CASHEWS BUILDING SITUATED AT VADAKODU, THALAVOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, WHICH WAS CAPTURED BY ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES IN A VERY DISCREET MANNER FROM A DISTANCE. WP(C).No. 694 of 2018 (J) ------------------------- ii RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------- EXHIBIT R7(a) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12-01-2018 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENTS 7, 9 AND 10 BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT R7(b) COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 12-01-2018 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF. EXHIBIT R7(c) COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 110/2018 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT R12(a) COPY OF THE RENT DEED DATED 24-08-2017. EXHIBIT R12(b) COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 12TH RESPONDENT DATED 25-07-2017 AND 11-09-2017. /true copy/ PA TO JUDGE dkr K.VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 694 of 2018 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2018

J U D G M E N T Vinod Chandran, J. The petitioner, a private limited company, is said to have initiated a novel project of having a chain of department stores on the basis of franchisee agreements entered into with various persons in different localities. The party respondents herein are said to be persons, who have entered into agreements with the petitioner. The petitioner having taken a security deposit from the franchisees, in proportion to the extent of the shop buildings offered by the franchisees, has carried out interior works and has also supplied materials for sale in the franchisee's unit. The arrangement was that the sale price would be remitted to the petitioner company and the franchisees would be given a monthly remuneration. The petitioner's contention is that the franchisees themselves started selling their own products within the shops and failed to deposit the amounts due to the petitioner company. Not only that the 12th respondent is said to have ransacked the petitioner's premises and taken away many goods. The petitioner lodged a complaint as seen from Ext.P5 and also gave a representation to the District Police Chief apprehending that the other franchisees would repeat what the 12th respondent did.

Respondents 5, 6, 8 and 11 do not appear. Advocate Shri D.Kishore appearing for respondents 7, 9 and 10 specifically points out that there is no allegation against any of the party respondents, but the 12th respondent. The Writ Petition has been filed merely on an apprehension. It is also the submission of respondents 7, 9 and 10 that there has been serious misappropriation of funds by the petitioner on the basis of the so-called chain of super markets and that huge amounts were taken from the party respondents, who have filed complaints before the respective police stations. It is also the specific contention of the party respondents that the complaints together has to result in an investigation by the Special Branch CID as per Circular No.22/2013 as an economic offence, since the amounts involved exceed Rs.2 crores. It is submitted that respondents 7, 9 and 10 have filed complaints and so would the others.

The 12th respondent categorically submits that there was no incident of a ransacking of the petitioner's premises. In fact, the 12th respondent, dissatisfied with the franchisee agreement, had taken the goods supplied by the petitioner company back to his premises, which was refused. These goods were taken back in two lorries on the basis of which a complaint was raised by the petitioner.

We find that essentially the disputes are contractual in nature and that there is absolutely no reason why this Court should decide on the legitimacy of the allegations of either of these parties in the present Writ Petition. Suffice it to notice that both the parties have filed criminal complaints, in which action in accordance with law, will be taken by the Police, proper investigation conducted and proceedings initiated against those charged of offences under the Indian Penal Code or under any other Statute. The learned Counsel for the party respondents also submits that they do not propose to take law into their hands. The said submission is recorded and the Writ Petition is rejected. No costs.

K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge ASHOK MENON Judge dkr