Kerala High Court

P.K. Ramachandran vs The Commissioner Of Police on 9 April, 2021

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

     FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                      W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N)


PETITIONER/S:

                P.K. RAMACHANDRAN
                AGED 78 YEARS
                S/O KITTU, POOVATHINGAL HOUSE,
                ELANAD P.O.,
                THALAPPILLY,
                CHELAKKARA,
                THRISSUR

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR
                SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN
                SRI.HARISANKAR N UNNI
                SHRI.SARANGADHARAN P.

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
                THRISSUR CITY, PIN-680 020.

      2         THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
                PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION,
                THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 587.

      3         JANARDHANAN,
                S/O KITTU, POOVATHINGAL HOUSE,
                ELANAD P.O.,THALAPPILLY,
                CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR-680 586.

      4         AYYAPPADAS,
                S/O MADHAVAN, KALANGARA HOUSE,
                NEAR RAMANCHETTI SCHOOL, VENOOR P.O.,
                PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR-680 587.

      5         PRASOBH,
                S/O VASU, KARIMATTATHIL HOUSE,
                KUTTADAN DESOM,
                PULAKKODE P.O.,
                CHELAKKARA,
                THRISSUR, PIN-680 586.
 W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N)

                                2

       6       SUNIL KUMAR,
               S/O BALAN,
               ELACHIL HOUSE,
               MALAMBAD DESOM,
               PANGARAPPILLY P.O.,
               CHELAKKARA,
               THRISSUR-680 022.

               R1-2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
               R3-6 BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA

OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI SUNIL NATH N.B-GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N)

                                   3

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is a senior citizen aged 78 years, has filed

this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent

Commissioner of Police to grant protection from harassment at the

hands of the 2nd respondent Station House Officer, Pazhayannur

Police Station. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of

mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to afford adequate

police protection to the life and property of the petitioner, from the

hands of respondents 3 to 6. The 3 rd respondent is the brother of

the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 are his nephews. In the writ

petition, it is alleged that the 3rd respondent and his men are not

allowing the petitioner to enter into his property or to tap rubber

trees and take usufructs. On 04.10.2020, at about 10.00 a.m.,

while the petitioner was standing in his property at Thrikkanaya to

tap rubber trees, respondents 3 to 5 abused him and manhandled

him. The petitioner submitted Exts.P1 and P2 complaints dated

13.10.2020 before respondents 1 and 2 seeking police protection,

which was followed by Ext.P3 complaint dated 16.10.2020 before

the 2nd respondent Station House Officer. Alleging inaction on the

part of respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner is before this Court in

this writ petition, seeking the aforesaid reliefs. W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N)

2. On 22.10.2020, when this writ petition came up for

admission, notice before admission was ordered to the

respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for

respondents 1 and 2. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to

respondents 3 to 6. Having regard to the submissions advanced by

the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court granted an interim

order directing the 2nd respondent Station House Officer to ensure

that no harm is caused to the petitioner by the party respondents.

3. Respondents 3 to 6 have filed counter affidavit,

opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, by contending

that the petitioner is taking adornment stand against respondents

3 to 6, in order to prevent them from enjoying the fruits of the

compromise recorded by this Court in FAO No.257 of 2008, based

on Ext.R3(a) compromise petition. There is no threat or

harassment or any illegal act against the petitioner, from the side

of respondents 3 to 6. The petitioner submitted Exts.P1 to P3

complaints before respondents 1 and 2, without any bona fides, in

order to harass respondents 3 to 6.

4. Along with the memo filed by the learned Government

Pleader, the statement of the 2 nd respondent Station House Officer

is placed on record, wherein it is stated that, based on Ext.P1, the W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N)

1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent to conduct inquiry in the

matter. On 14.10.2020, both parties were summoned to the police

station. However, the petitioner did not turn up. On 19.10.2020,

the 2nd respondent received Ext.P3 complaint made by the

petitioner. Though the petitioner was summoned to the police

station, he did not turn up. As per the statement of the 2 nd

respondent, the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 3

to 6 is in the nature of civil dispute, regarding partition of property.

There is no threat or harassment from the side of the respondents,

as alleged in the writ petition.

5. On 23.03.2021, during the course of arguments, it was

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the

learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 that settlement of dispute

by way of mediation can be explored and both parties shall appear

before the District Mediation Centre, Thrissur, on 05.04.2021.

Accordingly, both parties were directed to appear before the

District Mediation Centre, Thrissur, on 05.04.2021 at 11.00 a.m.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also

the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner and also the W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N)

learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 would submit that the

matter could not be settled in mediation.

8. The Kerala Police Act, 2011 is enacted to consolidate

and amend the law relating to the establishment, regulation,

powers and duties of the Police Force in the State of Kerala and for

matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Chapter II of

the Act deals with duties and functions of Police. Section 3 of the

Act deals with general duties of Police. As per Section 3, the Police,

as a service functioning category among the people as part of the

administrative system shall, subject to the Constitution of India

and the laws enacted thereunder, strive in accordance with the

law, to ensure that all persons enjoy the freedoms and rights

available under the law by ensuring peace and order, integrity of

the nation, security of the State and protection of human rights.

Section 4 of the Act deals with functions of Police. As per Section

4, the Police Officers shall, subject to the provisions of the Act,

perform the functions enumerated in clauses (a) to (s) of Section

4. As per clause (a), the Police Officers shall enforce the law

impartially; and as per clause (b), the Police Officers shall protect

the life, liberty, property, human rights and dignity of all persons in

accordance with the law.

W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N)

9. Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian

Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police thus;

"In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, well-trained and well-disciplined force or police whom it can trust, and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice.

The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants."

10. In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary

[(2014) 2 SCC 532] the Apex Court held that, one of the

responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and

property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the

important duties the police has to perform. The aim of

investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the

offender to the book. The Apex Court reiterated the said principle

in Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15

SCC 470].

11. 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 W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N)

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.

12. 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 W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N)

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.

13. 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.

14. One of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition is a writ

of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Commissioner of

Police to grant protection from harassment at the hands of the 2 nd

respondent Station House Officer.

15. Alleging harassment from the side of the 2 nd respondent

Station House Officer, the petitioner has not chosen to file any

complaint before the 1st respondent or any superior officers. Ext.P1

complaint made by the petitioner before the 1 st respondent is one

seeking police protection alleging threat from the side of

respondents 3 to 6. In the said complaint, the petitioner has not

made any allegations against the 2nd respondent, as to police

harassment. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N)

this Court in Aslam S., in the absence of any exceptional

circumstances of grave and imminent danger made out in the writ

petition, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction

of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the

ground of police harassment.

16. Another relief sought for in this writ petition is a writ of

mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to afford adequate

police protection to the life and property of the petitioner, from the

hands of respondents 3 to 6.

17. The specific stand taken in the statement filed by the

2nd respondent Station House Officer is that there is no threat or

harassment to the life and property of the petitioner, from the side

of respondents 3 to 6. The dispute between the petitioner and

respondents 3 to 6 is in the nature of a civil dispute, in relation to

partition of the property.

18. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by

respondents 3 to 6 is that there is no threat or harassment against

the petitioner, from the side of the said respondents. The petitioner

filed Exts.P1 to P3 complaints before respondents 1 and 2, without

any bona fides, in order to harass respondents 3 to 6 and to

prevent them from enjoying the fruits of the compromise recorded W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N)

by this Court in FAO No.257 of 2008.

19. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out

the interim order of this Court dated 22.10.2020, whereby the 2 nd

respondent Station House Officer is directed to ensure that no

harm is caused to the petitioner by respondents 3 to 6.

20. Having considered the pleadings and materials on

record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on

both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following

directions;

(i) In case there is any threat to the life of the petitioner from the side of respondents 3 and 6 or their men, the petitioner shall approach the 2nd respondent Station House Officer with a request for Police protection.

(ii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent shall take necessary action on that request, without any delay, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra.