2025:KER:29143 1 WA No. 644 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WA NO. 644 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.03.2025 IN WP(Crl.) NO.254 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NOS 4 AND 5: 1 BALAKRISHNAN NAIR S/O MULLAPPILLY PARUKUTTY AMMA, POOKUNNAM POST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680002 2 K. BHARATHAN, PROPIETOR, TOP CONSTRUCTION, SHORNUR ROAD, THRISSUR, S/O MULLAPILLY BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, POOKUNNAM POST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680002 BY ADVS. N.L.BITTO MITHUL T ANTO RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NOS. 1,2,3,6: 1 LATHA BALAKRISHNAN AGED 70 YEARS W/O BALAKRISHNAN, KOLLARA HOUSE, THALIKULAM POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680569 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF 2025:KER:29143 2 WA No. 644 of 2025 KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 3 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003 4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER VADANAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680614 5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER TOWN EAST POLICE STATION THRISSUR - 680001; [ADDL.R6. SUO MOTO IMPLEADED VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 24/03/2025] OTHER PRESENT: SMT NEEMA T V, SR. GP & SRI. VINAY VIJAY SHANKER FOR PARTY RESP THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29143 3 WA No. 644 of 2025 J U D G M E N T Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. This intra-court appeal is preferred by the appellants/ respondents 4 and 5 in the Writ Petition, challenging the judgment dated 24.03.2025 in W.P.(Crl) No. 254 of 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. By the judgment, the learned Single Judge had disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Station House Officer, Vadanappilly Police Station, (3rd respondent) to forward Ext.P14 complaint filed by the writ petitioner to the Station House Officer, Town East Police Station, Thrissur (Addl. 6th respondent) and act upon the same in accordance with law. 3. Sri. N.L. Bitto, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, raised two contentions. According to the learned counsel, though the appellants were made a party to the proceedings, the Writ Petition was disposed of without even serving notice to the respondents. He would also submit that essentially, the matter in dispute between the parties was raked up before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum and against adverse orders passed by the District Forum and the State Forum, the appellants herein had approached the National Commission and had 2025:KER:29143 4 WA No. 644 of 2025 obtained a stay on condition that he remits the amount due to the writ petitioner within the stipulated time. The writ petitioner instead of getting the orders enforced, ventured to approach this Court and secure orders. It is submitted that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, a crime has been registered. It is urged that there was no justification in issuing directions to the Additional 6th respondent to entertain the complaint. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, who submitted that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge is in order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. 6. We find that the only relief that was granted by the learned Single Judge was to issue directions to the officer of the Station concerned to forward the complaint to the Police Station having jurisdiction and to act upon the complaint in accordance with law. At this stage, the appellants cannot be stated to be aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge. If any action is taken by the police, he is well within his 2025:KER:29143 5 WA No. 644 of 2025 rights to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. We find no reason to interfere. This Writ Appeal will stand dismissed. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE Sd/- P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE APM