Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE28H DAY OF JANUARY20148TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 28787 of 2013 (W) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VINOD KUMAR AGED36YEARS S/O.N.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KRISHNA NIWAS, ULAVUKKADU NOORANADU, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADVS.SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR SRI.P.ARAVIND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001 2. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA688001 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORANADU, ALAPPUZHA688101 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SUJITH MATHEW JOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2801-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28787 of 2013 (W) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE JOSCO HOSPITAL DATED1311-2013 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD ISSUED FROM THE JOSCO HOSPITAL EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE1T RESPONDENT ON20 11-2013 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COURIER RECEIPT DATED2011-2013 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE2D RESPONDENT ON20 11-2013 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COURIER RECEIPOT DATED2011-2013 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------- [True copy] P.S to Judge. Manjula Chellur, C.J.
& A.M. Shaffique, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 28787 of 2013 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th day of January, 2014.
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate.
2. We have gone through the writ petition and also the statement filed by the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent brutally manhandled him on 1.11.2013 along with two police constables at a public place at Noornadu. Not being satisfied with this, he was also assaulted in the police station resulting in severe injuries, which compelled him to take treatment at a private hospital, Josco Multi-Speciality Hospital at Pandalam. He has approached this Court seeking protection from the harassment alleged to have been caused at the hands of the 3rd respondent. According to him, the 3rd respondent, on several days, visited the place of the petitioner interfering with his liberty.
3. As against this, the 3rd respondent has placed a detailed statement denying all the allegations levelled against him. According to the 3rd respondent, on 1.11.2013, certain activists of Communist Party under the leadership of the present petitioner and several others blocked Kayamkulam-Punalur road in front of the Nooranadu police station at about 10.00 a.m. Law and order problem was created under the leadership of this petitioner in the said locality. In spite of proper direction and advice by the 3rd respondent, they did not heed to the advice of W.P(C) No. 28787 of 2013 -:
2. :- the 3rd respondent. Hence, Crime No. 1400/2013 came to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149 and 283 I.P.C. read with Section 117(e) of the Keala Police Act. Under the leadership of one K. Raghavan, District Communist Member of CPI(M), about 150 party members came and blocked access to the police station. They further abused and threatened the police. The police were practically obstructed from moving around. Another crime No. 1401/2013 came to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 353, 294(b), 506(ii) I.P.C. and also Section 3(1)(2)(c) of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act. On 7.11.2013, two persons were arrested in this regard and were remanded to judicial custody. Except this action of the police, the 3rd respondent never went to the house of the petitioner. If at all, he was enquiring it was in connection with Crime No. 1400/2013, in which already a bail was granted in favour of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent categorically submitted that he has no intention whatsoever to harass the petitioner.
4. In the light of above facts placed on record, we cannot stop the police from the concerned police station to investigate Crime No. 1400/2013. Similarly, if petitioner has any grievance against a particular police officer, he has to inform the superior police officer under whom 3rd respondent is discharging his duties as Sub Inspector or to approach the Magistrate Court initiating a private complaint. In the light of specific allegations made against W.P(C) No. 28787 of 2013 -:
3. :- the 3rd respondent, it would be advisable to entrust investigation of Crime No. 1400/2013 to some other police officer instead of 3rd respondent. We cannot give a blanket direction not to enquire or interrogate the petitioner by the police. In the light of the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.