Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 13TH VAISAKHA, 1943 WP(C) NO 10998 OF 2021 PETITIONER: 1 WILLIAM JOSE, AGED 37, S/O.JOSE N.S., HAVING ADDRESS AT UNITY CENTRE, MM PLAZA, KARIMPA P.O., PALGHAT DISTRICT 678 597. BY ADVS A.B.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KANNAMALI POLICE STATION, KOCHI, PIN 682 008 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MARADU POLICE STATION, KOCHI, PIN 682 304 4 RAJESH FRANKLIN S/O.FRANKLIN, ARATTUKULANGARA HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI P.O., KOCHI 682 507. 5 RONNY STEPHEN S/O.STEPHEN, PATTASSERIL HOUSE, KUREEKKAD, THRUPPOONITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 301 R1 TO R3 BY SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is conducting a recruitment and
placement agency at Karimpa in Palakkad District under the name and style 'Unity Services', which is facilitating visa for placement in European destinations, has filed this writ petition under Article 226of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to harass the petitioner on the
basis of any case that might be registered on the basis of the facts
stated in the writ petition.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, petitioners
4 and 5 have approached the petitioner for job abroad in Italy in the engineering field. The petitioner offered them the services and accepted usual service charges. The selection for job abroad depends on the experience of respondents 4 and 5 in the wanted technical field, genuineness of their experience certificates and qualifying certificates. In the writ petition, it is alleged that, since respondents 4 and 5 have no required ability in English language, they were denied visa to Italy. Though it is not the fault of the petitioner and his institution, they have filed complaints before respondents 2 and 3, alleging offences under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.
4. In Gopalapuram Thangalakshmi Chits Pvt. Ltd. v.
State of Kerala and Others [2014 (4) KHC 703], a Division Bench of this Court held that a writ petition complaining police harassment cannot be prosecuted to get the seal of approval of the High Court for any particular nature of transaction for one to claim insulation from legal action in accordance with law, even in criminal jurisdiction. A complaint made by a citizen to the jurisdictional Magistrate or a first information statement to the jurisdictional police, leading to the lodgment of FIR, will have to be proceeded with in accordance with law. Any action against the person who is alleged to have committed any illegal act ought to be only in accordance with law. This is the situationally relevant twin face of the guarantee as to Rule of Law in conformity with the Constitution and the laws. Thereby, the right to fair treatment and access to justice would be ensured to the one who says that he is a victim and also to the one against whom an allegation is levelled.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN JV JUDGE