AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Nagaresh, J
The petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the alleged omission on the part of the 5th respondent in extending protection to the petitioners from respondents 6 and 7.
The petitioners state that the petitioners along with respondents 6 and 7 purchased an antique Statue of Ganapathi believing it to be genuine. After purchase, it was found that the Statue is not a genuine Statue. It is the case of the petitioners that respondents 6 and 7 are under a misunderstanding that the petitioners are involved in this cheating case and to recover the amount spent by them, respondents 6 and 7 are threatening the petitioners.
The petitioners state that the Statue of Ganapathi is with the police authorities now. Respondents are, however, visiting the house of the petitioners and threatening them. Unless respondents 1 to 5 interfere in the matter, the petitioners will be put to untold hardship and loss.
Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioners along with respondents 6 and 7 purchased a Statue of Ganapathi believing that it was of antique value. Later, it was found that the Statue was a fake one. The petitioners and respondents 6 and 7 have spent merely `25 lakhs for the Statue. The petitioners apprehend that respondents 6 and 7 will turn against them. That is the reason for filing this writ petition.
Respondents 6 and 7 contested the writ petition. Respondents 6 and 7 submitted that huge amounts are due to them from the petitioners, in respect of a land deal. The petitioners have filed the writ petition in order to escape from their liability and police investigation in the matter. The writ petition is without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed, contended respondents 6 and 7.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 5 and the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7.
Obviously, from the pleadings in the writ petition and the arguments raised at the Bar, it is evident that this is a matter of a monetary dispute, if at all there is any dispute between the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7. If respondents 6 and 7 have any claim against the petitioners, they shall proceed before the appropriate authorities/ Forum/Court for redressal of their grievances. Respondents 6 and 7 cannot take law into their hands.
In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to approach the competent among respondents 4 and 5, if there are any further obstruction or threat from respondents 6 and 7. In case the petitioners file such complaint, respondents 4 and 5 shall enquire into the matter and take appropriate steps, in accordance with law.
This judgment shall not in any manner affect the power of the police to investigate into any crime that may come to their notice.