Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1943 PETITIONERS: 1 THOMAS JESHIN B.A AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY B.T., 2 CELINE ANTONY, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O. ANTONY B.T., 3 ANTONY M.T, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, BY ADV. SRI.SARUN RAJAN RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 010. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COCHIN CITY, PIN 682 031. 3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, COCHIN, PIN 682 005. 4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, COCHIN 682 005. 5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, COCHIN, PIN 682 005. 6 TREASA TOMY, AGE NOT KNOWN, W/O. JOSEPH TOMY, THYKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, MATSYAPURI BAZAR P.O. COCHIN 682 002. R1 - R5 BY SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 to 4 not to harass the petitioner. The petitioners have also sought for an order directing respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere with the civil/matrimonial dispute between the 1 st petitioner and the 6th respondent. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the parents of the 1st petitioner. The 6th respondent is the mother- in-law of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner's wife Elizabeth Tessi T.J. committed suicide on 04.10.2020. In the writ petition it is
alleged that in connection with civil/matrimonial disputes, respondents 3 and 4 are harassing the petitioners at the instance of the 6th respondent, since the petitioners refused to heed the illegal demands of the 6th respondent.
2. On 25.02.2021, when this writ petition came up for
admission, the learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to address arguments taking note of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Aslam S. and another v. State of Kerala and Others [2011 (2) KHC 384].
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 6.
4. In Aslam S. and another v. State of Kerala and
others [2011 (2) KHC 384] a Division Bench of this Court, in a writ petition seeking reliefs alleging police harassment, held that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be invoked by parties and exercised by the Court only in exceptional circumstances of grave and imminent danger to the person applying for such relief, provided, such a situation is shown and demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Writ Court and it is shown that the alternate remedies under the Kerala Police Act, 1960 are resorted to, but remains ineffective or has turned futile. Such orders cannot be sought for in a routine manner.
5. In Aslam S., the Division Bench held further that, even
apart from the provisions contained in Section 17E of the Kerala Police Act, 1960 the law is fairly well settled that every police officer is duty bound to ensure that he shall act in strict conformity with the laws. Firstly, he is a public servant. More importantly, he is one who belongs to a uniformed force. The conditions of service of such an establishment oblige the personnel to act only within the
frame work of the Constitution and the laws. In an establishment with a hierarchy of officers in administration, every superior officer is duty bound to ensure that the subordinate does not breach the law and acts only in strict conformity with the laws. This has to be so, even by the terms of the Police Act. Therefore, it is all the more the duty of every superior officer in the police establishment to attend to any complaint of citizens of any harassment or other unlawful act by any member of the police force subordinate to such officer. In this view of the matter also, the citizens have abundant avenues to bring complaints before the superior officers in the police establishment.
6. The Kerala Police Act, 2011 contains provisions similar to that dealt with by the Division Bench in Aslam S. Section 110 of the said Act deals with the Police Complaints Authority.
7. After arguing for sometime, the learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to file a proper complaint before the superior officers and thereafter move this Court again, in case there is inaction on the part of the superior officers in discharging their statutory duty. Recording the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the petitioners. Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN JV JUDGE