Kerala High Court
Suo Motu vs Mr.Santhosh Kumar. J on 5 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 2815 OF 2008
PETITIONER:
SUO MOTU
BY ADV SMT.K.V.RESHMI (STATE BRIEF)
RESPONDENTS:
1 MR.SANTHOSH KUMAR. J.
S.I. OF POLICE, POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION,,
TRIVANDRUM.
2 ANILKUMAR
C.NO.6650, CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM.
3 BABUJI NADAR
HEAD WARDER, CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM.
4 THE SUPERINTENDANT
CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM.
5 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION.
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SHIBA M SAMUEL
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR
SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON 05.04.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP(C)No.2815 of 2008
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
---------------------
WP(C) No.2815 of 2008
---------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
One Anilkumar, C.No.4363, District Jail, Thiruvananthapuram, who was undergoing life imprisonment in connection with SC No.105/2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-V, Ernakulam complained about an incident which took place on 23.5.2007. He states that he was allotted the work in the canteen in the jail and on 23,5.2027 at about 1.30 p.m., he went to the flour mill with an escort as a part of his duty. Sri. Santhosh Kumar J, SI of Police and three constables asked him about another convict in connection with the throwing of explosives on a Police Constable in a civil dress on a previous occasion outside the compound wall of the jail. took him into custody and manhandled him. Anilkumar was later produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, and a case was registered against him for escaping from jail. The convict submitted that he was escorted by Babuji Nadar, the Head Warden of the District Jail and pleaded not to -3- WP(C)No.2815 of 2008 take him into custody. Still, the Sub Inspector of police and other police officers discarded it and took him into the police station manhandled him and registered a false case. Accordingly, he requested for steps to be taken against Sub Inspector Sri. Santhosh Kumar J and others who forcefully took him to custody manhandled him and registered a false case. This writ petition was registered following the enquiry conducted by the Principal District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram and also the report of the portfolio judge.
2. It is reported that, immediately after the arrest of Mr.Anilkumar, the Superintendent of Central Prison, alerted Poojappura Police Station and requested in writing to locate the police vehicle and police party who had abducted the convict. Till 3.50 p.m., Poojappura Police did not inform the Superintendent or any other prison authority regarding the arrest of the prisoner, who according to the police, escaped from the Prison. When the Director General of Police (Prisons) contacted at about 3.55 p.m. the Commissioner of Police it came to know that the convict was arrested by the Poojappura Police Sub Inspector and he was detained in that station based on Crime No.146/2007
3. Though the Superintendent, of Central Prison, went to Poojappura Police Station, at 4. p.m., in uniform and requested the -4- WP(C)No.2815 of 2008 release of the convict who had not tried to escape from the prison but was sent out of prison for grinding rice, with an escort, he was not released. Besides the Sub Inspector had insulted the Superintendent, who is in the rank of Superintendent of Police. The convict suffered assault from the Sub Inspector and he had undergone treatment at General Hospital. It is further reported that there is no complaint from the Jail authorities regarding the escape of the prisoner and it is surprising how the S.I. concluded that the convict prisoner escaped from the Central Prison and registered a case under section 225 B IPC. Mr Babuji Nadar was made the second accused in the case. He was produced before the magistrate who remanded him he was released on bail much later.
4. A perusal of the entire pleadings and the reports including that of the Principal District Judge, the report of the Honourable Judge in charge of the prison petitions, the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government, the counter affidavit of the first respondent -Sub Inspector of Police makes it abundantly clear that the registration of the crime and arrest of the petitioner was totally unwarranted. The statement taken from the convict then clearly speaks about the manhandling and his being taken to the hospital where also the complainant was assaulted by the police officer.
-5-WP(C)No.2815 of 2008
5. Though there is an attempt on the part of the government to say that there was a rift between the prison department and the police department and that the arrest was due to a misunderstanding, the same cannot be accepted at all. It was a case where a convict was arrested and a case registered for no reason. The case of the assault also has to be seen in the background of the events that have taken place.
6. By a strange turn of events, Anilkumar had filed an affidavit on 17.8.2023 stating that he got employment arranged through the first respondent and that he does not have any subsisting grievance. A written submission was also filed on behalf of his lawyer on 30.6.2023 stating that the first respondent had not manhandled or ill-treated him in any manner and that he has no complaint against the police or first respondent. Under such circumstances, he prayed that all further action be dropped.
7. The subsequent filing of the affidavits by Anilkumar and the averments therein shows that it was an afterthought to save the respondents by retracting from the earlier statements in a case where the incident is admitted by all the respondents. Even the enquiry conducted by the Principal District Judge and also the subsequent events made the Honourable Judge in charge of the prison petitions -6- WP(C)No.2815 of 2008 seek the permission of the Chief Justice to register a suo motu writ petition.
8. In the wake of the above developments, this Court by order dated 13.2.2024 directed the State Police Chief to file an affidavit as to the antecedents of the first respondent from his commencement of service up till now. An affidavit has been filed showing the following details:
"5. The details of the disciplinary proceeding or complaints against Sri.Santhosh Kumar J (PEN 146708), Inspector of Police Cyber Operations since 23.05.2007 and rewards since his entry into the uniformed force as per the service records are listed below:
Date of entry into service - 22/09/2004 FN as SI trainee (GE)
6. Recognition/Rewards Sl No. Recognition/Awards Total 1 Chief Minister's Police Medal (2018) 1 2 Badge of Honour (2018) 1 3 Good Service Entry 31 -7- WP(C)No.2815 of 2008
7. Disciplinary Proceedings and Complaints An oral Enquiry was ordered as per GO(Rt)No.2874/05 of Home (H) Department dated 21.11.2005 against Sri.Santhosh Kumar J for the investigation lapses committed by him in the investigation of Crime No.299/02 U/s 324, 323, 427, 394 IPC while he was working as Sub Inspector of Police at Palluruthy Police Station in Kochi City based on the report of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam in VE/11/2003/CRE dated 04/09/2003. The Oral Enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kochi City as per GO(Rt) No.524/06/Home dated 01/03/2006. As per the PR minutes submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the allegation raised against Sri.Santhosh Kumar J, SI of Police could not be proved. Hence he was exonerated from the charges levelled against him vide GO(Rt)No.2078/2011/Home dated 14/07/2011.
On perusal of the records, it is found that a Non-Oral Enquiry was also ordered against Sri.M K Sulfikkar, DySP, Sri.J Santhosh Kumar, IoP, Sri.K.Sudheer, SI of Police and Sr.V.M.Sreekumar, SI of Police, vide PHQ Order No. G2-84784/2018 dated 22/06/2018, for perfunctory investigation and lapses committed by them in the course of investigation of crime No.496/2016 of Pozhiyoor Police Station, with the Superintendent of Police, Railways as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the Non-Oral Enquiry and submitted PR Minutes along with connected -8- WP(C)No.2815 of 2008 documents holding the charges levelled against the delinquent officer as proved. The disciplinary action was disposed of by the disciplinary authority by awarding a punishment of 'Censure' to Sri.Santhosh Kumar, IoP for direction of duty vide Order No.G2/84874/2018 dated 20/03/2020."
9. As stated above, the explanation given on behalf of the respondents, both by the police officer concerned as well on the part of the Government, justifying the conduct of the officer is not acceptable However, taking note of the passage of time, and the subsequent affidavits filed by the convict, I am not inclined to give any further direction to proceed against the first respondent though the defence of the Government for not taking any action citing the pendency of the writ petition is not tenable. The fact remains that Anilkumar was detained illegally which seriously infringed his constitutionally guaranteed rights which the respondents were bound to protect. I also reckon the remorse expressed by the officer concerned, the details of his service and accordingly suggested to the learned counsel for the first respondent, whether his client is prepared to pay reasonable compensation to the first respondent to put a quietus to the dispute.
10. Learned senior counsel, on instructions from his client, the first respondent has graciously accepted the offer put by the court and accepted the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- suggested by the Court. It is made -9- WP(C)No.2815 of 2008 clear that the said amount is not being paid on account of any adjudication made by this Court towards any liability, but it is only to bring about the quietus to the issue
11. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Secretary of the District Legal Service Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, before whom the complainant Sri. Anilkumar and the first respondent will appear on 16- 4-2024 at 11.00 a.m., to ensure payment of Rs.1,00,000/- by the first respondent to Anilkumar and file a report regarding that before this Court within a week thereafter.
The service rendered by the amicus curiae is appreciated. In the light of the above, the writ petition is closed.
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE dlk/11.3.2024 -10- WP(C)No.2815 of 2008 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2815/2008 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8/06/2023