Kerala High Court
T.S.Gokul Das vs The State Police Chief on 12 April, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 14685 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 T.S.GOKUL DAS, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.T.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA,
THIRUNILATHIL MADAM, 115 A, KANIMANGALAMAYYAPPANKKAVU
RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION (KARA), KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680027
2 VIMAL KUMAR.T, AGED 41 YEARS, THIRUNILATHIL HOUSE,
AYYAPPANKAVU ROAD, KANIMANGALAM.PO., THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680027
BY ADVS.
P.SANJAY
A.PARVATHI MENON
BIJU MEENATTOOR
INDIRA.K.P.
PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH)
KIRAN NARAYANAN
RAHUL RAJ P.
MUHAMMED BILAL.V.A
MEERA R. MENON
BASILA BEEGAM
DEVIKA S. PRASAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, KERALA POLICE HQ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695010
2 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER
THRISSUR CITY, KERALA., PIN - 695010
3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
OLLUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLLUR, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680306
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NEDUPUZHA, F6X6+M9R,
KANIMANGALAM, THRISSURNEDUPUZHA, PIN - 680007
5 AJITH KUMAR SINGH, 9TH FLOOR, TBBL MEGHNA APARTMENT,
KOORKKENCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680007
WPC 14685/24
2
BY ADVS
AJEESH K SASI AKS - R5
P.M.SHAMEER - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WPC 14685/24
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be the brother of Dr.Sathi Devi Singh, who is an ailing senior citizen; while, the 2 nd respondent to be her caretaker. They say that the senior citizen is being assaulted by her own husband, namely the 5 th respondent, and therefore, that they took her into their protection; but which has now resulted in a contra-allegation made against them, that they have taken away her valuable gold ornaments and other articles with confutative intent. They say that they have committed no such and have no reason to take away any article of the senior citizen; and that all these are being asserted by the 5 th respondent merely as a ruse to cover up his own misdeeds.
2. The petitioners allege that, however, instead of the afore imputation being instigated against the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent - Station House Officer, is now harassing them, by unnecessarily summoning them to the Police Station, under the guise of a complaint preferred by the former. They thus pray that WPC 14685/24 4 the said respondent be directed not to harass them or cause any prejudice to them in such manner.
3. In response to the afore submissions of Smt.A.Parvathi Menon - learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Ajeesh K. Sasi - learned counsel for the 5th respondent, submitted that, as evident from the averments in the Writ Petition and the submissions made at the Bar, the attempt of the petitioners is to take control of his client's wife and thereby have access to her immeasurable and valuable properties and gold ornaments. He submitted that his client's articles are still inside the house, which has now been taken illegal custody of by the petitioners; and that, therefore, he had no other option but to approach the Police with a complaint, which requires to be investigated. He contended that this Writ Petition is only a complot by the petitioners to impede such investigation and to hold on to the stolen wealth of his wife; and concluded his submissions reasserting that every allegations made against his client, including that he assaults his wife, are blatantly wrong and have been urged solely for reasons that are extremely questionable, to take control of not only the senior citizen, but WPC 14685/24 5 also her wealth. He thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.
4. Sri.P.M.Shameer - learned Government Pleader, in response, submitted that there appears to be certain disputes between the parties, but that the Police have not intervened into the same. He added that, however, the 5th respondent has preferred a complaint, that the petitioners have stolen certain articles from his wife and that they are in custody of her house, thus preventing his entry into it; and hence that an investigation became warranted. He added that the petitioners were not even summoned to the Police Station, but only asked through phone as to what they have to submit on this; but that this has now been misinterpreted by them as 'harassment'. He contented that the petitioners are bound to co-operate with the investigation and prayed that any attempt to the contrary may not be permitted.
5. I have no doubt, adverting to the afore rival positions, that, as far as the Police is concerned, they are obligated in law to investigate every complaint within the Statutory Scheme. They cannot harass any person, but they have all rights reserved to WPC 14685/24 6 them under the Statutory provisions to complete investigation and to file necessary reports before the competent Forum/Court. This cannot be impeded in any manner, since it is their bounden duty to do.
6. That being said, when any investigation is being carried on, the Investigating Officer must certainly confine himself to the Statutory parameters and to the manner forensically sanctioned. No party can be harassed; though necessary action can be taken to ensure that the enquiries are completed in terms of law.
In the afore circumstances, I record the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, that the petitioners are not being harassed, but that they are only being involved in an investigation on the basis of a complaint preferred against them by the 5 th respondent; and thus direct the 4 th respondent - Station House Officer, to complete the same in terms of law, without causing any unnecessary prejudice to any of them.
Needless to say, the rival contentions of the parties against each other, have not been looked into by this Court on merits and they are all left open to be impelled and pursued by them in WPC 14685/24 7 future, as and when it becomes so warranted.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
WPC 14685/24
8
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14685/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY FROM
11.07.2022 TO 15.07.2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
05.04.2024 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIVED
BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 05.04.2024