------------ This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents in respect of their inaction on Ext.P5 filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. It is alleged in the petition that respondents 1 and 2 have offered to deliver the flat as per Ext.P1 agreement and they have failed to do so. Thereafter, they entered in to Ext.P2 agreement agreeing to repay the amount and the amount agreed to be repaid was quantified as `.32,25,608/- but that was not done. Though Ext.P3 notice was sent, it was returned with endorsement addressee left as evidenced by Ext.P4 postal acknowledgment They were making some arrangements to go abroad by cheating the investors. So the petitioner as well as others filed a separate complaints before the Home Secretary and also other police officials as evidenced by Ext.P5. But so far no action has been taken on that complaint. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
I. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding respondents 3 to 5 to take action against respondents 1 and 2.
II. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding respondents 3 to 5 to take urgent action on petitioner's Exhibit P5.
3. On the basis of the allegations in the petition, the District Police Chief, Kochi City, fifth respondent filed a statement on his behalf and on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 which reads as follows:-
1. It is humbly submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is that on 25.10.2007 the petitioner had entered into an agreement for purchasing 347 sq feet apartment with M/s SRK Shelters (P)Ltd, formerly SRK constructions represented by the first respondent. In the agreement 1st respondent assured the completion and transfer of apartment being constructed at Edachira Kakkanad before 2010 and accordingly collected `.34,79,327/- but failed to comply with the agreement. Then after a series of discussions respondent agreed to return the received money along with interest (Total `.54,19,509) to the petitioner and an agreement was also prepared in this regard. Out of the same `.22,34,000/- was paid by the 1st respondent in different installments but failed to pay the balance amount of `.32,25,608/-
2. It is submitted that the petitioner claimed that he had submitted a petition before respondents 3 to 5 on 25.02.2014 for taking action against respondents 1 to 2 for defrauding, cheating and loss to the petitioner by misappropriation of money. Exhibit P5 petition received in the office of the 5th respondent on 28.03.2014 with an endorsement for registering a case and for conducting investigation.
3. It is submitted that the petition which bears no signature of the petitioner had entered in station register as No.95/SO/PTN/2014/E19.
4. It is humbly submit that since the received petition lacks signature of petitioner, Thrikkakkara Police could not able to register a case then. later the SI of Police, Thrikkakkara recorded the statement of the petitioner on 28.05.2014 and crime No.712/2014 u/s.406, 420, 34 IPC was registered at Thrikkakkara Police Station, and took up the investigation forth with and is continuing.
4. When the application came up for hearing today, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the facts mentioned in paragraph 4 of the statement that a crime had already been registered, no further direction at this stage is required and that statement may be recorded and the petition can be disposed of with liberty for the petitioner to come later, if necessary, if not satisfied with the out come of the investigation. The statement in paragraph 4 of the statment of the fifth respondent, that a crime had laready been registered as crime No.712/2014 of Thrikkakkara police station under sections 406, 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code as against the respondents 1 and 2 and investigation is going on and also the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner are recorded and the petition is disposed of accordingly leaving open the right of the petitioner to get his grievance redressed if the outcome of the ivnestigation is not satisfactory in accordance with law.
With the above directions and observations, the petition is disposed of.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE R.AV