Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 2131 OF 2020 CC 1486/2019 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER:1ST ACCUSED: JAINENDRA KUMAR AGED 63 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT TC 17/1296-7, SANJAY RESORTS, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, THIRUMALA P.O., POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2 WILSON MULLASSERIL, S/O GEE VARGHESE PAPPACHAN, TC 17/1296-8, SANJAY RESORTS, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, THIRUMALA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 006. R1 BY SRI. HRITHWIK C.S., SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.03.2022, THE COURT ON 08.04.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 2
ORDER
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed by the petitioner seeking to quash entire proceedings in C.C. No.
Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioner. That case was taken on file on a private complaint instituted by the second respondent against the petitioner as the sole accused alleging offence under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is a retired Lieutenant Colonel, retired from the Indian Army and presently, employed as the Chief Security Officer, Techno Park, Kazhakootam. The second respondent is a lawyer by profession. In fact, this is the standing testimony of an ugly ego clash between the petitioner and the second respondent who are neighbouring residents in an apartment by name ‘Sanjay Resorts’ at Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The facts of the case are like this:- Entire apartments in the said Sanjay Resorts originally belonged to the second respondent who had purchased eight cents of property in Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 3
Sasthamangalam Village and constructed a four storied building. He had sold the second floor of the building to one M.P. Varghese, who in turn sold the same to one K.G. Pillai and the petitioner and his wife purchased the apartment from the said K.G. Pillai under sale deed No. 794/2008 of Sasthamangalam Sub Registry along with 1/4th of two cents which devolved on all the owners of the apartments. The ground floor of the building is in the occupation of the second respondent. His wife is also a lawyer in Vanchiyoor Courts in Thiruvananthapuram. The first floor is in occupation of one Oommen Samuel, the second floor was purchased by the petitioner and his wife under the said sale deed and the third floor is also in the possession and enjoyment of the second respondent. Even though both of them are owners of the apartments in adjacent stories, numerous cases are pending between them and this is the standing testimony of the long standing enmity and spite between the parties.
3. According to the second respondent, he is a lawyer having 23 years of standing in Vanchiyoor courts in Thiruvananthapuram and enjoying high social status in the society Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 4
and among the members of the legal fraternity. While so, the second floor of the building was purchased by the petitioner/accused from K.G.Pillai in 2008 and since then his family is put up in the apartment.
4. The second respondent has cited numerous instances
stating that the petitioner/accused is trying to defame and causing him mental injury and defamation to the entire family. The first instance is the institution of O.S. No. 299/2014 before the Additional Munsiff's Court- III, Thiruvananthapuram. That was a suit instituted by the petitioner, the said Oommen Samuel and others against the second respondent and M/s. Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd. According to him, they had instituted the suit for restraining the second respondent and others from putting up a telecom tower on the terrace of the four storied building. According to him, the Munsiff Court had refused to grant interim injunction and now the case is pending for framing issues. He has also cited various other reasons in which the accused/the petitioner is making conscious attempts to defame his family and trouble them. The other instance is execution of sale deed No.
Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 5
fraud against the spirit of the restrictive covenants in the previous documents. According to him, such a document was created by making serious manipulations. Thus, he took up the matter and made complaints to the Deputy Inspector General of Registration Department (License) and on that basis the scribe licence of one P. Sankaran Nair who had scribed the sale deed was suspended. He also has narrated about five instances of frivolous complaints instituted against him by raising unnecessary imputations defaming him. The first is a complaint preferred by the accused on 07.03.2014, before the Sub Inspector, Poojappura. The copy of the complaint was attached. Similarly, on 27.04.2014 also a frivolous complaint was preferred before the Sub Inspector, Poojappura. On 25.04.2016 also a complaint was preferred by the accused before the Sub Inspector of police, Poojappura police station. He has quoted the complaint dated 25.04.2016 in Annexure A complaint preferred before the court. Similarly, on 20.12.2016, a fourth complaint was preferred by the accused before police with frivolous allegations. Everything was done
Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 6
with the intention of harassing and vexing the second respondent for defaming and derogating him and to ridicule him in the minds of the right thinking people. Similarly, another instance is W.P. (C.) No. 41528/2016 filed by him before this Court challenging the appellate order passed by the Kerala State Information Commission against the accused. There the following averments have been made:- “The 4th respondent and his family who is residing in the 3 rd floor of the said apartment complex had been creating nuisance to the petitioner and the other owners in the apartment complex. The eldest son of the 4th respondent had written indecent and vulgar language on the front wall of the petitioner's house, where in the petitioner is residing with his wife and only daughter. When the said unlawful and indecent acts of the 4th respondent family exceeded all limits petitioner was constrained to make written complaint before the Poojappura police station.”
6. According to the petitioner, these circumstances and
imputations made by the petitioner/the accused were intended to defame the complainant and his family. Consequently, they had lost their social standing and goodwill in the society. He was called to the police station on numerous occasions and therefore, has preferred the said complaint before court. After examining the
Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 7 complainant on oath, by Annexure C order dated 08.11.2019, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram took cognizance of the case as C.C. No. sought to be quashed by exercising inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 482 and 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
7. According to the petitioner, the allegations in the
complaint are baseless and were made to harass and vex the petitioner. He has stated numerous circumstances to say that there is long standing enmity between the petitioner and the second respondent. There are series of litigations pending between them; some of them were already disposed of by the respective courts. Parties have made allegations against each other in the said litigations, but in no stretch of imagination, it can be said that petitioner had made any allegation against the second respondent or his family members with intention to defame them. Not only that the petitioner is legally entitled to make allegations in a legal proceedings against the opposite party for protection of his own
Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 8 interest, hence the petitioner has moved this Court for quashing the proceedings.
8. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.
9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a
complaint preferred to an authority seeking to take action cannot be taken as act intended to publish or to tarnish or defame the accused and therefore, such an act cannot attract offence under Section 500 of the IPC. According to the learned counsel, therefore, four instances mentioned in the complaint are not capable of attracting offence under Section 500 of the IPC. Regarding the statement of facts in W.P.(C.) No. 41528/2016, he said that they are only narration of facts for a litigation and no imputation has been made against the second respondent. He had never raised it as an imputation. In W.P.(C.) No. 41528/2016, he had moved this Court for quashing an appellate order passed by the Information Commissioner. This Court has already allowed that writ petition and therefore, now the allegation of the
Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 9 petitioner that it has attracted offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC cannot be upheld. He had never made any imputation. Narration of statements of facts cannot be taken as an imputation. According to him, averments in the writ petition will not amount to imputation and there is nothing defamatory in it.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second
respondent submitted that it was not a mere case of question of raising allegations. The averments made in the writ petition and in the complaints preferred before the police amount to publication and therefore, it is for the petitioner to make it out that his allegations or the complaint or the imputations made there, fall within any of the exceptions provided in Section 499 of the IPC. In this connection, the learned counsel also relied on the decision reported in Shybimon v. Haridas [2010(2) KHC 607].
11. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that there is absolutely nothing defamatory either in the complaints or in the writ petition and a complaint preferred Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 10
before an authority cannot be reckoned as a publication. In this connection, he relied on the decision reported in David John v. Jose Moothedan and Another [2020 KHC 3112]. According to him, some stray statements or casual observations made in the complaint or in the written statements cannot be reckoned as imputations. Only if it is actually published, it would amount to imputation.
12. As noticed earlier, petitioner and the second
respondent are adjacent apartment dwellers in a four storied building, entire portion of which once belonged to the second respondent. He had put up the structure in eight cents of land in Sasthamangalam Village; the ground floor and the third floor are still in his possession. He had sold the first and second floors to strangers. The second floor was initially sold to one M.P. Varghese from whom one K.G. Pillai purchased it and the petitioner and his wife are the subsequent assignees from the said K.G. Pillai under Annexure D sale deed.
13. The averments in Annexure A complaint and statements of facts in the Crl.M.C. would reveal that even though Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 11
parties are residents in the neighbouring apartments, no love is lost between them and all are the result of an ugly ego clash between the two. There are numerous cases pending between the parties in different courts. Annexure A complaint indicates that the petitioner had preferred numerous complaints against the second respondent before police. But police had not taken any action thereon, may be because of the hollowness of the allegations or that some of the allegations are rather silly and childish and at the most amount to only discourteous behaviour which do not warrant serious attention or consideration. The records produced by the parties indicate that initially a suit as O.S. No. 299/2014 was instituted by the petitioner and one Oommen Samuel, who occupies the first floor, against the second respondent and another which is evident from Annexures E and F in the Crl.M.C. There are reasons to think that the second respondent did not relish the petitioner purchasing the second floor and occupying the same. Whatever it may be, it has come out that the second respondent had erected a telecom tower on the terrace portion of the building, which is supposed to be
Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 12
the common area, without obtaining permit from the Corporation against which the petitioner and the said Oommen Samuel instituted the suit for injunction against the second respondent and M/s. Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd. seeking to restrain them under a decree of injunction. Initially, the Munsiff who heard the interlocutory application dismissed the application for interim injunction against which the said Oommen Samuel, the petitioner and his wife preferred C.M.A. No. 42/2014 and by Annexure E
order dated 30.09.2016, the order of the Munsiff was reversed
and they were granted interim injunction. Now the petitioner says that, that suit stands decreed against the 2 nd respondent and Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd.
14. The second dispute is O.S. No. 779/2017 filed by the
second respondent against the petitioner and his wife. As indicated earlier, the second respondent had a case that sale deed No. 794/2008 was executed by fraudulent means etc., and they preferred a suit for cancelling the sale deed which is evident from Annexure G suit for setting aside the document. Annexure H is an interim order passed by the Additional Munsiff - III,
Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 13
Thiruvananthapuram restraining the defendants i.e., the petitioner and his wife from creating any document in respect of the same. In the same suit, i.e., O.S. No. 779/2017, the defendants filed I.A.No. 8228/2017 against the plaintiffs and obtained an order in their favour. The fact appears to be that the second respondent had put up an additional water tank at the common area on the ground floor of the building. As water scarcity was felt by the petitioner as well, he also wanted to put up an additional water tank which was resisted by the second respondent against which the said I.A. was filed and Annexure I
order was obtained in his favour. Thereafter, as a fall-out,
Annexure J complaint was preferred by the second respondent against the petitioner and others alleging various offences which was forwarded to the police and by Annexure K FIR, a case has been registered as Crime No. 883/2018 of Poojappura police station alleging offences under Sections 120B, 441 445, 503, 504 read with 34 of the IPC against the petitioner and others.
15. The fourth instance is filing of W.P.(C.) No. Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 14
his men. In the said writ petition, it is inferable that the second respondent had leased out the first floor of the building for commercial purposes and the tenants started commercial activities in the tenanted premises without obtaining license from the Corporation. Even though the petitioner had preferred complaint before the Corporation, they took no action against which W.P. (C.) No. 2650/2019 was filed and the writ petition is pending.
16. As hinted earlier, the second respondent has a case
that the sale deed was obtained by the petitioner through fraudulent means violating the covenants in the previous documents so that he had preferred complaint before the Deputy Inspector General of Registration seeking to quash it and also got suspended the licence of the scribe who prepared the document. Annexure L indicates that even though the Deputy Inspector General of Registration had taken a view against the sale deed, on re-assessment of the matter, the Inspector General of Registration found that there is no substance in the said finding and found that the sale deed is a properly registered one and thus
Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 15 he ruled that the allegations touching the execution of sale deed No. 794/2008 are baseless.
17. It has come out that against the said finding in Annexure L, the 2nd respondent preferred a complaint before the Special Court, Vigilance, Thiruvananthapuram with Crl.M.P. No.
petitioner, the Inspector General of Registration etc. Ultimately, by Annexure M, the Vigilance Court found that there is absolutely nothing to proceed with the preliminary enquiry. After getting report on the preliminary enquiry, the complaint of the second respondent was closed by the Vigilance Court.
18. It has also come out that the second respondent had
sought some personal pieces of information from the employer of the petitioner which were not furnished, against which an appeal was preferred before the Information Commissioner who allowed the appeal. Challenging the correctness of the order of the Information Commissioner, the petitioner preferred W.P.(C.)
No. 41528/2016 before this Court and by Annexure O judgment
dated 17.02.2017, the writ petition was allowed by this Court, Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 16 quashing the proceedings of the State Information Commissioner and remitting the matter for further hearing of the appeal.
19. A narration of the sequences of events and the cases
filed by the parties each other, no doubt, would indicate that there are numerous litigation continuing between the parties. They are inimically disposed, in spite of the fact that the parties are residing in adjacent floors of the same apartment. The petitioner resides with his family in the second floor, whereas ground floor and the 3rd floor are occupied by the second respondent and his family.
20. After elaborately hearing the parties, finding the
hollowness of the allegations made against each other, this court thought that by an effective mediation, if the parties are made to sit around a table and talk over, they may be able to reconcile; thus the court had suggested a mediated settlement. Both the learned counsel were convinced and they agreed for an attempt to settle the disputes through mediation and thus, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, but the outcome was disappointing. The learned Mediator reported that
Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 17 the dispute is not settled and thus the matter came back. In the circumstances, the Crl.M.C. has to be disposed of on merits.
21. I have narrated the sequences of events and long line
of litigations pending between the parties. Both the parties are supposedly maintaining status in the society. While the petitioner is a former Lieutenant Colonel now employed as Chief Security Officer in Techno Park, Thiruvananthapuram, the second respondent and his wife are lawyers in Thiruvananthapuram. But I must say that both of them are not rising to the occasion, but stooping too low and fighting each other and are indulging in unscrupulous litigations which would only swell the number of cases pending before both civil and criminal courts. As noticed earlier, the second respondent has gone to the extent of challenging a sale deed obtained by the petitioner from a third person, who is a subsequent assignee of the second respondent himself, still on the ground that some other covenant happened to be incorporated in the sale deed, he wanted to set aside the same. Since the matter is pending before the Civil Court, I do not want to express any opinion about it. He also approached the Deputy
Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 18
Inspector General of Registration calling for the cancellation of the scribe licence of the person who drafted that document; when the matter went before the Inspector General of Registration, the Inspector General took a stand in favour of the petitioner, then second respondent took up the issue before the Vigilance Court and caused a quick verification conducted. After getting quick verification report, the Vigilance Court found that there is no substance in the allegations against the petitioner and the Inspector General of Registration and thus the matter was closed.
22. There are also materials to say that the petitioner had
preferred numerous complaints against the second respondent before the Sub Inspector of Poojappura police station. Annexure A complaint would demonstrate how silly are the allegations in the complaint. In one case, it is stated that the younger son of the second respondent had spat in front of the door of his house. When it was brought to the notice of his elder brother, he had ridiculed the petitioner. Similarly, when the matter was related to the second respondent, he also asked him to go and institute a case against him. But it requires to be stated that the petitioner is
Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 19
not an eye witness of the alleged spitting. Whatever it may be, in another instance, it is stated that somebody had inscribed the words 'sexy' near the front door of his house with a pencil. According to him, it was intended to ridicule the women members of his family, so he preferred a complaint. Another complaint is regarding the putting up of a flex board in a tree inside the compound. Thus, numerous complaints have been preferred by the petitioner himself against the second respondent. But the petitioner does not deny the making of these complaints. According to him, matters stated therein are not imputations but only statements of fact which are not sufficient to attract offence under Section 500 of the IPC. According to him, those were not intended to defame or derogate the second respondent and therefore, he is not liable to be prosecuted.
23. As stated earlier, generally speaking, two
circumstances have been stated by the 2nd respondent in the Annexure A complaint for attracting offence under Section 500 of the IPC. The first one is preferring of four complaints before the police and the second is the alleged imputations made by the Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 20 petitioner in W.P.(C) No.41528/2016 before this Court.
24. After considering entire circumstances and materials,
I have no doubt in mind that these litigations are part of a dirty game arose out of ego clash between the parties who supposedly are maintaining high status in the society. I have no doubt that a former Colonel and a lawyer have standing in the Society. But by their own conduct they have proved that they are not worthy to claim any status. While the petitioner used to prefer complaints before police on silly matters, the second respondent is more determined to fix the petitioner one way or the other. The extent of the enemity of the 2 nd respondent is evident from various proceedings initiated by him. Whatever it may be, the complaints preferred by the petitioner before the Sub Inspector of police, Poojappura police station cannot be a reason for invoking Section 500 of the IPC. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is peremptory that in order to attract offence under Section 500 of the IPC, it requires to be proved that the alleged imputation was published by the accused. But preferring a complaint before an authority, requesting to take
Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 21
action cannot be described as an act of publication. The learned counsel has rightly relied on the decision in David John, quoted supra, in which this Court has held that it is not a publication unlike in the case of an averment made or an affidavit filed before a court of law which is likely to be seen by the court staff before the matter is placed before the Judge concerned; in Shybimon, quoted supra, it was pointed out that an affidavit is not a secret document; it forms part of court records and is available to and accessible to the public. Once a document is filed in a court of law, such a statement can be taken as published. Unlike in the case of an affidavit, filing a complaint before police cannot be stated as an act of publication. Here, four complaints dated 07.03.2014, 27.04.2014, 25.04.2016 and 20.12.2016, made mention in Annexure-A complaint, were addressed to the Sub Inspector of police for initiating action against the 2nd respondent. It may be true that the 2 nd respondent might have been called by the Sub Inspector with the intention of taking action. But it does not amount to publication. The Sub Inspector alone might have read it. Even if it was read by some
Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 22
other personnel in the police station, that cannot amount to publication and I am in respectful agreement with the learned Single Judge of this Court in David John, quoted above. I have also come across the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in P.M. Kathiresan v. Shanmugham, Retd. Captain [1995 Crl.LJ 2508] where the subject matter was a complaint preferred by the complainant before the Superintendent of Police. Referring to the stand taken by the accused, the Court held that such a complaint falls within the 8 th exception of Section 499 of the IPC which cannot be an act of publication and therefore, offence under Section 500 of the IPC is not attracted. In other words, the four complaints made mention in the Annexure-I complaint cannot form the subject matter for attracting offence under Section 500 of the IPC.
25. All the same, as adverted to earlier, such a stand
cannot be taken with regard to the averments made in W.P.(C) No.41528/2016. I have already quoted the paragraph containing the imputations allegedly made against the petitioner. This Court is unable to form an opinion while considering a petition filed Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 23
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. whether that would amount to imputations attracting offence under Section 500 of the IPC. It is for the petitioner to say that those are narrations of facts, that statements were made in good faith and therefore, it cannot attract offence under Section 500 of the IPC or the matter falls in any of the exceptions contained in Section 499 of the IPC. It is a matter for the Court to weigh and consider the same. In spite of the fact that the parties are inimically disposed, it is for the Court to decide whether the said statements made in W.P.(C.) No.
respondent so as to defame him. Therefore, in order to consider that question the trial court will have to dispose of the case on merits. Leaving open such a question, the Crl.M.C. is disposed of. Sd/- K.HARIPAL JUDGE DCS/Okb/04.04.2022 Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 24 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.4.2017 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.8.2017 IN CMP NO ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MP NO CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TVM ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED BEARING NO 794/08 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, SASTHAMANGALAM DATED 4.3.08 ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.9.2016 IN CMA COURT-V, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO 299/2014 DATED 15.9.2018 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT-111, TVM ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 779/2017 FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.5.2017 WITHOUT EXHIBITS ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 779/2017 FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.5.2017 WITHOUT EXHIBITS ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO 3029/17 IN OS NO 779/17 DATED 5.6.2017 OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT-111 TVM ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF IIND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN IA Crl.M.C.No.2131 OF 2020 25 ANNEXURE J TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT CMP NO 2132/2018
DATED 25.4.2018 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ANNEXURE K TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 883/18 OF POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION DATED 5.5.2018 ANNEXURE L TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.6.2019 NO. GRC(3) 4833/14 OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, TVM ANNEXURE M TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.MP NO 30/2016 DATED 4.3.2017 OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE N TRUE COPY OF WRIT PETITION NO 41528/2016 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 29.12.2016 WITHOUT EXHIBITS ANNEXURE O TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO 41528/2016 DATED 17.2.2017 ANNEXURE P TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO 21/RTIACT/B2-14 DATED NIL FROM THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE Q TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO 30/RTI/17/PJP DATED 13.12.2017 FROM THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION