Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Jameela on 17 December, 2021
W.A. No. 307/2021 & batch :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WA NO. 307 OF 2021
JUDGMENT DATED 16.09.2020 IN WP(C) 35963/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM 682 031
2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 010.
3 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
THRISSUR RURAL, CAMP OFFICE, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 003.
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR 680 614.
BY ADV SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:
MURALEEDHARAN
AGED 64 YEARS
C/O. GEETHA, PAZHEDATH HOUSE, KUNDALIYOOR P.O, ENGANDIYUR ,
THRISSUR 680 616.
BY ADVS.
SRI.THIYYANNOOR RAMAKRISHNAN
SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P
SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2021,
ALONG WITH W.A. NOS. 308, 324, 415 & 416 of 2021 THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No. 307/2021 & batch :2:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WA NO. 308 OF 2021
JUDGMENT DATED 16.09.2020 IN WP(C) 35956/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.
3 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
THRISSUR RURAL, CAMP OFFICE, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 008.
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ANTHIKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR - 680 641.
BY ADV SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 IN WPC:
1 MARIYAMMA,
W/O. SHAJU, MENACHERI HOUSE, ELTHURUTHU P.O,
THRISSUR - 680 011.
2 NITHA SAJEESH @ NITHA MOL
W/O. SAJEESH P.O, PARAMEL HOUSE, VADAKKUMURI, PULLAZHI P.O,
THRISSUR - 680 012.
3 HEMA SANTHOSH
W/O. SANTHOSH P.R, PARAMEL HOUSE, PULLAZHI P.O,
THRISSUR - 680 012.
4 SANAL SAMBATH
S/O. SAMBATH, VILLA VEETTIL HOUSE, NEW WEST VALLEY ROAD,
ELTHURUTHU P.O, PULLAZHI, THRISSUR - 680 611.
W.A. No. 307/2021 & batch :3:
BY ADVS.
SRI.THIYYANNOOR RAMAKRISHNAN
SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P
SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2021,
ALONG WITH W.A.NO. 307/2021 & BATCH, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No. 307/2021 & batch :4:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WA NO. 324 OF 2021
JUDGMENT DATED 16.09.2020 IN WP(C) 35953/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM 682 031.
2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 010.
3 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
THRISSUR RURAL, CAMP OFFICE, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 003.
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR 680 503
BY ADV SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 IN W.P.C:
1 JAMEELA
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. UMMER, MUSLIM VEETTIL HOUSE, EDAKKAZHIYUR P.O,
THRISSUR 680 515
2 SHAKEEL ISMAIL,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED ISMAIL, THEKKINKATTIL HOUSE, PALAYOOR P.O,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK, TRICHUR 680 506.
BY ADVS.
SRI.THIYYANNOOR RAMAKRISHNAN
SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P
SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2021,
ALONG WITH W.A.NO. 307/2021 & BATCH,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No. 307/2021 & batch :5:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WA NO. 415 OF 2021
JUDGMENT DATED 16.09.2020 IN WP(C) 35954/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM 682 031.
2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 010.
3 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
THRISSUR CITY, PATTALAM ROAD, THRISSUR 680 001.
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR 680 306.
BY ADV SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 19 IN WPC:
1 SAJI JOSEPH
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PARADIYIL HOUSE,
MARATHAKKARA, OLLUR, TRICHUR 680 306 PERMANENT ADDRESS AT
PARADIYIL HOUSE, KARIMANNUR P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI
DISTRICT 685 581.
2 BIJU P.D,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.D AVID, PANANGAD, KULAMBRATH HOUSE, PERAMANGALAM,
THRISSUR 680 545.
3 RAJITHA,
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O. AJEESH, VETTIYATTIL HOUSE, ARATTUPUZHA P.O, THRISSUR
680 562.
W.A. No. 307/2021 & batch :6:
4 ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, 3/419, CHITTATHATTIL HOUSE, THRIKKUR
P.O, THRISSUR 680 306.
5 JUDIT PRINTO,
AGED 28 YEARS
W/O. PRINTO PAUL, PINDIYAN HOUSE, PALLIKKUNNU,
VARANTHARAPPILLY, THRISSUR 680 303.
6 PAUL C.A,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. ANTONY, CHIRAMMAL HOUSE, THRIKKUR P.O, THRISSUR 680 306
7 MONCY
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. THANKACHAN, MONCY BHAVAN, MANALIL P.O, YEROOR,
PUNALUR, KOLLAM 691 312
8 MANZOOR,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. HASSANKUTTY, PULAKKAL HOUSE, VADANAMKURUSSI P.O,
PALAKKAD 679 121.
9 SHYMALA,
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O. MANIKANDAN, KOTHUR HOUSE, MARATHAKKARA P.O,
THRISSUR 680 306.
10 FR. PRINCE PAUL,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. PAUL PINDIYAN HOUSE, VARNTHARAPPILLY P.O,
THRISSUR 680 303.
11 PLENISH P.P,
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. PAULSON, PALLAN HOUSE, KALLUR, PUDUKKAD,
THRISSUR 680 317.
12 DHANYA NARAYANAKUTTY,
AGED 34 YEARS
W/O. NARAYANAKUTTY, W/O. NARAYANANKUTTY, MUTHEDATHU
HOUSE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, KALOOR DESAM, TRIKKUR VILLAGE,
THRISSUR 680 306.
13 LIJO K.V,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. WILSON, KARITHY HOUSE, KALLUR P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR 680 317.
14 SATHIANESH K.S,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. VASANTHI K.A, KUNNATHULLY HOUSE, PANAMUKKU,
NEDUPUZHA P.O, THRISSUR 680 007.
15 MEENA K.S,
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O. SAHADEVAN, KARAMAKKAL HOUSE, POOTHARAKKAL P.O,
W.A. No. 307/2021 & batch :7:
CHERPPU, THRISSUR 680 561
16 PRIYESH P.P,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. PAULSON, PALLAN HOUSE, KALLUR, PUDUKKAD,
THRISSUR 680 317, REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNY
PLENISH P.P, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. PAULSON, PALLAN HOUSE,
KALLUR, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR 680 317.
17 RAFI C.J,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. C.A JOHNY, CHETTUPUZHAKKARAN HOUSE, PONKUNNU P.O,
KACHERIKKUNNU, MANKAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT REPRESENTED
BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY PLENISH P.P, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.
PAULSON, PALLAN HOUSE, KALLUR, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR 680 317.
18 REJI C.K,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. C.V KURIAKOSE, CHOVALLUR HOUSE, PONKUNNU P.O,
KINASSERY, KOZHIKODE 673 007, REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER
OF ATTORNEY PLENISH P.P, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. PAULSON, PALLAN
HOUSE, KALLUR, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR 680 317
19 HAREESH K NAIR,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. KONTHUNNI NAIR, KARIMATHIL HOUSE, AYILIKKAD, EDAPPAL,
MALAPPURAM 679 576 REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY
PLENISH P.P, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. PAULSON, PALLAN HOUSE,
KALLUR, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR 680 317.
BY ADVS.
SRI.THIYYANNOOR RAMAKRISHNAN
SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P
SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2021,
ALONG WITH W.A.NO. 307/2021 & BATCH, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No. 307/2021 & batch :8:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WA NO. 416 OF 2021
JUDGMENT DATED 16.09.2020 IN WP(C) 35722/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 010.
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
THRISSUR RURAL CAMP OFFICE, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 003.
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PAVARATTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR - 680 509.
BY ADV. SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 62 IN WPC:
1 K.J.JOHNY
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.K.P.OUSEPH, KAKKASSERY HOUSE, ALOOR P.O., MATTAM,
THALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR - 680 602.
2 SHABNA SIRAJ
AGED 32 YEARS
W/O.SIRAJ, NALAKATH HOUSE, BRAHMAKULAM, CHITTATTUKARA P.O.,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 511.
3 NABEESU
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O.MUHAMMED, NALAKATH HOUSE, BRAHMAKULAM,
CHITTATTUKARA P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 511.
4 SUDHI ARIYAKKARA
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.BHASKARAN, ARIYAKKARA HOUSE, PERUVALLOOR P.O.,
W.A. No. 307/2021 & batch :9:
CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 508.
5 SURAG M.N.
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.NARAYANAN K.V., MANGAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANNAKARA P.O.,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 508.
6 MOOSA
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O.KHASIM, AMBALATH VEETTIL, PANDARATHIL, MANNATHALA,
CHAVAKKAD P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 506.
7 SHIJU PLAVALAPPIL
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.SURENDRAN, PLAVALAPPIL HOUSE, MANALOOR P.O., PALAZHI
DESHAM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 617.
8 SHOBHANA PLAVALAPPIL
AGED 60 YEARS
W/O.SURENDRAN, PLAVALAPPIL HOUSE, MANALOOR P.O., PALAZHI
DESHAM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 617.
9 NIMYA SABEESH
AGED 26 YEARS
W/O.SABEESH C.V., CHENDANGARA HOUSE, CHITTATTUKARA P.O.,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 511.
10 AISHA
AGED 40 YEARS
D/O.MUHAMMADALI, KALOOR HOUSE, ANCHANGADI P.O., CHAVAKKAD
TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 514.
11 JALALUDHEEN
AGED 17 YEARS
MINOR, S/O.NOUSHAD AND AISHA, REPRESENTED BY HIS
GUARDIAN/MOTHER-AISHA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMADALI,
KALOOR HOUSE, ANCHANGADI P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR -
680 514.
12 GEETHA V.A.
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O.NANDAKUMAR T.A., THIRUVATHRA HOUSE, ALOOR P.O., MATTAM
VIA., THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 602.
13 VANAJA
AGED 48 YEARS
D/O.KUTTAPPAN, KAKKASSERY HOUSE, PUVATHUR P.O.,
BRAHMAKULAM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 508.
14 ABOOBAKER
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.ALI, THANAPARAMBIL PARAPPIL HOUSE, EDAKAZHIYUR P.O.,
PUNNAYUR PANCHAYATH, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 515.
15 OMANA SREEDHARAN
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O.SREEDHARAN C.K., CHANAYIL HOUSE, MATTOM P.O.,
KANDANASSERY PANCHAYATH, THALAPPILLY TALUK,
W.A. No. 307/2021 & batch : 10 :
THRISSUR - 680 602.
16 BABY KAKKASSERY
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O.K.V.GEORGE, KAKKASSERY HOUSE, MATTOM P.O.,
KANDANASSERY PANCHAYATH, THALAPPILLY TALUK,
THRISSUR - 680 602.
17 GIREESH K.M.
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.MANI K.U., KUMARATH HOUSE, KUNDALIYUR P.O., ENGANDIYUR
PANCHAYATH, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 616.
18 AJITH BIJU
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O.BIJU E.V., MATTOM P.O., EARATH HOUSE, KANDANASSERY
PANCHAYATH, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 602.
19 ARIF P.
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.KUNJUMON, PERUMKULAM HOUSE, EDAKAZHIYUR P.O.,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 515.
20 MANOJ KUMAR T.K.
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.KUNJUMON, THOOMATTU HOUSE, CHITTATTUKARA P.O., ELAVALLY
VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 511.
21 MOHAMMED ALI
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.ALI, PARAPPIL HOUSE, EDAKAZHIYUR P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
THRISSUR - 680 515.
22 ABOOBACKER
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, AMBALATHU VEETTIL, ELAVALLY SOUTH
VILLAGE, ELAVALLY P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 511.
23 SHERIFF KANDANATH
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.KHADER, KANDANATH HOUSE, EDAKKARA VILLAGE, AGALAD P.O.,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 518.
24 SHOBHA C.K.
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O.SATHEESAN, PANNARSSERY HOUSE, MATTOM P.O., ALOOR
VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 602.
25 SOBHI PURUSHOTHAMAN
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, PONNARSSERY, MATTOM P.O., ALOOR
VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 602.
26 SUSHITHA P.R.
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O.SATHEESAN, EARATH HOUSE, MATTOM P.O., ALOOR VILLAGE,
THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 602.
W.A. No. 307/2021 & batch : 11 :
27 ZEENATH S.K.
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.ABDUL JABBAR, RAYAMARAKKAR HOUSE, PODOOR P.O.,
VENKITUNGU, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 524.
28 JINCY JOHNY
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O.JOHNY K.J., KAKKASSERY HOUSE, MATTOM P.O., ALOOR VILLAGE,
THRISSUR - 680 602.
29 USHA PUSHKARAN
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O.PUSHKARAN, PANNARSERY HOUSE, MATTOM P.O., ALOOR
VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY, THRISSUR - 680 602.
30 SHEELA P.P.
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O.SADANANDAN V.V., VATTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALAYOOR,
GURUVAYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD P.O., THRISSUR - 680 506.
31 SHIJI T.B.
AGED 34 YEARS
W/O.SUDHI A.B., ARIYAKKARA HOUSE, PERAVALLOOR P.O., PENAKAM,
MULLASSERY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 508.
32 SOUMYA P.R.
AGED 33 YEARS
W/O.SALOOJ, PARANGANATT HOUSE, PERAVALLOOR P.O., PENAKAM,
MULLASSERY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 508.
33 VISHNU CHIROTH
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O.SANTHOSH, CHUROTH HOUSE, PERAVALLOOR P.O., PENAKAM,
MULLASSERY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 508.
34 SHAJI CHENANGARA
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, CHENANGARA HOUSE, CHITTATTUKARA P.O.,
ELAVALLY P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 511.
35 MINOR SAYAL SHIJU
AGED 9 YEARS
S/O.SHIJU AND SAJITHA SHIJU REP. BY MOTHER SAJITHA SHIJU,
CHENANGARA HOUSE, CHITTATTUKARA P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
ELAVALLY VILLAGE, THRISSUR - 680 511.
36 MANOJ
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.AJAYAGOSH, CHALIPPAT HOUSE, KARAMUKKU VILLAGE,
MANALOOR P.O., PALAZHI, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 617.
37 VIMAL M.B.
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, MENOTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANALOOR P.O.,
PALAZHI, KARAMUCK VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR - 680 617.
38 SHIJU P.S.
W.A. No. 307/2021 & batch : 12 :
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.SURENDRAN, PLAVALAPPIL HOUSE, MANALOOR P.O., PALAZHI
DESOM, KARAMUCK VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR - 680 617.
39 KRISHNA PRIYA
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O.JAYAPALAN, CHENANGARA HOUSE, CHITTATTUKARA P.O.,
ELAVALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 511.
40 ELSI KURIAN
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.KURIAN, ELAVATHINGAL HOUSE, KAKKASSERI, CHITTATTUKARA
P.O., ELAVALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 511.
41 MINI HARIDAS
AGED 44 YEARS
W/O.HARIDAS, KUNNATHULLI HOUSE, CHITTATTUKARA P.O., ELAVALLY
VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 511.
42 SUNITHA SATHYAN
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O.SATHYAN, CHENANGARA HOUSE, CHITTATTUKARA P.O., ELAVALLY
VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 511.
43 REMANI P.V.
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O.RAJESH, KARUTHAVAKA HOUSE, KAKKASSERI P.O., ELAVALLY
VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 511.
44 VAISHAKH K.S.
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O.SUNIL KUMAR, KUNDAYIL HOUSE, MANALOOR P.O., PALAZHI,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 617.
45 VISHNU K.S.
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.SUNIL KUMAR, KUNDAYIL HOUSE, MANALOOR P.O., PALAZHI,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 617.
46 MANOJ K.A.
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.AYYAPPU, KUNTHARA HOUSE, MARUTHAYUR P.O., PAVARATTY,
THRISSUR - 680 507.
47 BABITHA E.V.
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.MANOJ, KUNITHARA HOUSE, MARUTHAYUR P.O., PAVARATTY,
THRISSUR - 680 507.
48 JUMAILA
AGED 26 YEARS
W/O.SHIHAB, NALAKATH HOUSE, BRAHMAKULAM, CHITTATTUKARA
P.O., ELAVALLY, THRISSUR - 680 511.
49 LEKHIKA M.M.
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O.MANILAL, KARUMATHIL HOUSE, PAVARATTY P.O., PUVATHOOR,
W.A. No. 307/2021 & batch : 13 :
ELAVALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 508.
50 AYSHA
AGED 60 YEARS
W/O.LATE HAMSA, THERUVATHU CHALIL HOUSE, MANATHALA BEACH,
CHAVAKKAD P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 506.
51 A.K.SHAMILA
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O.HYDROS, THERUVATHU CHALIL HOUSE, MADEKKADAVU,
CHAVAKKAD P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 506.
52 HYDROS T.C.
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.ALIAMMU, THERUVETHU CHALIL HOUSE, MADEKKADAVU,
CHAVAKKAD P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 506.
53 VIJAYA VISWANATHAN
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O.VISWANATHAN, MADATHINGAL HOUSE, ELAVALLY VILLAGE,
PUVATHOOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 508.
54 NADEERA C.A.
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O.SHAHU, CHINNAKKAL HOUSE, KUMARAMPADI, BLANGAD,
THRISSUR - 680 506.
55 SHABNA ZIRAJUDHEEN
AGED 32 YEARS
W/O.ZIRAJUDHEEN, NALAKATH HOUSE, CHITTATTUKARA P.O.,
ELAVALLY, THRISSUR - 680 511.
56 JUMAILA
AGED 26 YEARS
W/O.SHIHAB, NALAKATH HOUSE, CHITTATTUKARA P.O., ELAVALLY,
THRISSUR - 680 511.
57 NABEESU
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O.MOHAMMED, NALAKATH HOUSE, CHITTATTUKARA P.O., ELAVALLY,
THRISSUR - 680 511.
58 RAJINI MOHAN
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O.MOHANAN, KUNATHARA HOUSE, MARUTHAYUR P.O., PAVARATTY
VIA., THRISSUR - 680 591.
59 SUBI MANAF
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O.MANAF, VATTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KILLIMANGALAM
KARATHUPADI DESAM, VENGANOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR RURAL,
THRISSUR - 680 591.
60 ASWATHI P.A.
AGED 29 YEARS
W/O.PRAKASHAN, PANNARASSERY HOUSE, MATTAM P.O.,
THRISSUR - 680 602.
W.A. No. 307/2021 & batch : 14 :
61 MOHAMMED AKBAR
AGED 41 YEARS
KOVIL HOUSE, VANMANAD DESOM, PAVARATTY, THRISUR - 680 507.
62 SHUBHA
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O.SUNIL KUMAR, KUNDAYIL HOUSE, MANALUR DESOM,
KARAMUKKU VILLAGE, ANTHIKKIAD, THRISSUR - 680 617.
BY ADVS.
SRI.THIYYANNOOR RAMAKRISHNAN
SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P
SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2021,
ALONG WITH W.A.NO. 307/2021 & BATCH, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No. 307/2021 & batch : 15 :
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2021.
JUDGMENT
[W.A. Nos. 307, 308, 324, 415 & 416 of 2021]
SHAJI P. CHALY,J.
The captioned writ appeals arise from the common judgment of
a learned single Judge dated 16 th September, 2020 in W.P.(C) Nos.
35963, 35956, 35953, 35954 and 35722 of 2019, whereby the learned
single Judge directed, the investigation in respect of malpractice in a
chitty transaction of a private company to be handed over to the Crime
Branch for effective investigation and to register separate FIRs,
including that of the respondents/writ petitioners separately. It is thus,
challenging the legality and correctness of the common judgment, the
appeals are preferred by the State and its officials.
2. The reliefs sought for by the respondents/writ petitioners are
typical in nature, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4 th
appellant namely the Station House Officer, Vadanappally Police
Station, Thrissur District, to register separate FIRs in the complaints
filed by the writ petitioners with regard to the TNT kuri fraud cases,
revealing cognizable offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,
120B r/w Section 34 of IPC, and for a further writ of mandamus
directing respondents 1 and 2 i.e., the State of Kerala and the Director
General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram to entrust the investigation to
the Crime Branch wing of the Kerala State Police.
3. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as
follows:
The writ petitioners are subscribers of various chitties/kuries
conducted by M/s. TNT Chits Pvt. Ltd. at its various offices, mostly
within Thrissur and Palakkad Districts. The case projected by the writ
petitioners is that the Directors of the company with the dishonest
intention, misappropriated crores of rupees of subscribers and thereby,
cheated them and finally closed down the branch offices on various
dates during the year 2019, thereby committing the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of IPC. According to the
respondents/writ petitioners, the Directors of the company have
cheated hundreds and hundreds of subscribers and embezzled Rs.50
Crores from 33 branches spread over 7 districts within the State of
Kerala.
4. The grievance voiced by the writ petitioners is that even
though they preferred complaints before the 4 th respondent Station
House Officer on the very next day of the closure of the branch, no
action was initiated. It was in the said background that the writ
petitions were filed.
5. The learned single Judge, after taking into account the
contentions put forth by the writ petitioners, was of the opinion that
since the offences alleged is massive in nature coming within the
jurisdictional limits of several police Stations, and since all the
complaints are identical with respect to the mischief and
misappropriation alleged to have been done by the company through
its various branches, it has to be investigated by a specialized agency
of the police, which can exercise its jurisdiction beyond the limits of
each of such police station. It was by recording so that both the reliefs
sought for by the writ petitioners were allowed and directions were
issued accordingly.
6. The State and its officials have preferred appeals basically
contending that the learned single Judge has not taken into account
the fact that the State Crime Branch is a specialized investigating
agency and is functioning with limited resources for investigating
specialized crimes and therefore, transferring such voluminous number
of cases would adversely affect the quality of the ongoing
investigations; that before ordering transfer of such large number of
cases, the learned single Judge ought to have called for a report from
the Additional Director General of Police (Crimes) to verify as to
whether the Crime Branch would be able to handle such voluminous
number of cases; that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, since
the writ petitioners are having an alternative efficacious remedy of
approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing complaints under the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and without exhausting
such remedy the writ petitions were filed; and that it is settled by
various judgments of the Apex Court that the jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India cannot be used for giving a positive
direction to register an FIR.
7. It is also contended that the learned single Judge ought to
have considered that already the State Police Chief has issued an order
dated 13.12.2019 as per which 3 crimes has been transferred to the
Crime Branch as lead cases to be investigated and remaining 505
cases were directed to be investigated by the local police of the
Thrissur city, Thrissur Rural and Palakkad; that the Superintendent of
Police, Crime Branch, Thrissur has been designated as the Nodal
Officer and Coordinating Officer of all those cases and thus, effective
measures have already been taken by the State Police Chief to ensure
that each crime relating to the TNT Chit fund transaction is
investigated meticulously under the supervision of the State Crime
Branch; and therefore, there was no requirement for transferring each
and every individual cases to the State Crime Branch, when the State
Crime Branch itself is not having sufficient capacity and manpower to
handle such a work load.
8. We have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.
Tek Chand appeared for the State and its officials, and Sri. Arun Kumar
P for the respondents/writ petitioners, and perused the pleadings and
materials on record.
9. The learned Senior Government Pleader has advanced
arguments based on the submissions recorded above. The learned
counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners submitted that since the
offences involved are spread over different police stations and different
districts, an effective investigation can be carried out only by a
specialized investigation wing of the Kerala Police Department and it
was taking into account the gamut of the issues alone, the learned
single Judge directed the investigations to be handed over to the
Crime Branch wing of the State Police.
10. That apart, it was contended that the Directors of the
company in question have amassed well in various parts of the State
and only if the investigation is conducted by a single specialized
agency, those aspects can be brought to light. Apart from the same, it
was contended that the Directors of the Company are very influential
persons and the respondents/writ petitioners and other subscribers of
the chit transactions are people belonging to the lower strata of the
society and therefore, unless and until the investigation is conducted
by the Crime Branch, there is every likelihood of the offences being
diluted in order to protect the interest of the Directors of the company
in question.
11. We have evaluated the rival submissions made across the
Bar. The learned Senior Government Pleader has submitted before us
that already different FIRs are registered alleging various offences of
the Indian Penal Code, and therefore that part of the judgment of the
learned single Judge is Complied with. However, it is submitted that
the direction for the investigation of all the cases to be conducted by
the Crime Branch would not be a viable proposition for the reason that
the Crime Branch is not having sufficient manpower to cope up the
workload of the investigation to be conducted in respect of the kuri
fraud cases.
12. That apart, it was also pointed out that it was bearing in
mind the seriousness of the aspect that the State Police Chief has
decided to supervise the investigation through the Superintendent of
Police, Crime Branch, and it was with the intention of ensuring that the
investigations are conducted by the police, three of the FIRs registered
were treated as lead cases and decided to be investigated by the State
Crime Branch.
13. The sole question that emerges for consideration is whether
the investigation of the entire First Information Reports registered by
the police is to be conducted by the Crime Branch. In that regard,
Annexure A proceedings bearing No. D3-49096/2019/PHQ dated
13.12.2019 of the State Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram is relevant.
It is an order passed by the State Police Chief on the basis of the
orders passed in various bail applications by a learned single Judge of
this Court, wherein it is stated that in view of the order of the High
Court of Kerala, a close monitoring of the investigation is required by
senior officials of the Department.
14. It is also evident from the said order that a review meeting
was held on 13.12.2019 at the Police Headquarters under the
Chairmanship of the State Police Chief, Kerala, which included officers
from local police, Crime Branch and Police Headquarters. In the said
meeting, the aspect of clubbing of cases has been taken into account
and on finding that it is not possible, three cases involving highest
amount from each districts were selected from among 508 cases for
investigation by the Crime Branch, as it will not be possible to
investigate all 508 cases by the Crime Branch due to lack of resources,
and rest of the cases were decided to be investigated by the local
police/special team of respective districts. The details of three cases
selected as lead cases are also available in the said order. It was in
the said order that the Superintendent of Crime Branch, Thrissur has
been designated as a Nodal and Co-ordinating Officer for all those
cases and the District Police Chief of Thrissur City, Thrissur Rural and
Palakkad were directed to supervise the cases being in the hierarchy.
15. It is also evident that all Investigating Officers were directed
to inform the progress of investigation to SP, Crime Branch, Thrissur,
however, maintaining the jurisdictional hierarchy of the District Police
Chief. It is also evident that the pointers for the investigation of those
cases have been issued to the Investigating Officers also and further
the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory has been instructed to
expedite the reports in the cases and the cases have been equitably
distributed among the investigating Officers, who were also directed to
complete the investigation within 90 days and in a time bound manner.
The case details of each police station are discussed in the said order.
16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/writ petitioners submitted that the FIRs are not registered
by the police in many of the cases and that is an aspect to be looked
into by the superior police officers. Anyhow, the details with respect to
the number of UI cases pending as on 01.12.2020 with the Crime
Branch already and the man power available for conducting
investigation in various districts are detailed in the memorandum of
appeals and it reads thus:
Sl. District Total Total Total
No. Number of Number of Number of
Investigating Supporting UI cases
Officers Staff as on
1.12.2020
Thiruvananthapuram
Total 100 644 2342
17. Even though the learned Senior Government Pleader argued
vehemently that the directions contained in the judgment of the
learned single Judge is not sustainable under law, we are of the view
that interference as such is not required into the directions issued by
the learned single Judge, especially due to the fact that it is submitted
by the learned Senior Government Pleader that already separate FIRs
were registered by the police and a part of the judgment is complied
with. Be that as it may, taking into account the facts and figures in
regard to the number of cases involved in the matter of chit fund cases
and the fact that they are spread over various districts, and directions
were issued by the learned single Judge, we are of the view that the
judgment of the learned single Judge need not be set aside as such.
18. However, we are of the considered opinion that the Crime
Branch wing of the State Police is a specialized Investigating Agency
entrusted with the task of undertaking investigation of cases involving
serious offences remaining as a threat to the fabric of the society,
which has got wide ramifications and adverse impact on the normal life
of the people, and other offences having serious repercussions due to
scientific and forensic aspects to be dealt with, though a limited
number, but requires more attention and advertance. The manpower
available to the Crime Branch is also not that encouraging in order to
handle large volume of cases now directed to be handed over to the
Crime Branch. If there is no manpower available with the Crime
Branch for undertaking the investigation of a large number of cases, in
our view, it would seriously hamper the investigation process of the
cases now remaining with the Crime Branch. This we say because, the
State Police Chief has already passed an order directing investigation
in respect of three lead cases to be conducted by the Crime Branch,
and the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Thrissur District is
directed to supervise the investigation of those cases, and coordinate
the investigation carried out by the local police.
19. In our view, the order passed by the State Police Chief in
that manner would alone be a viable proposition to handle the large
number of cases registered by various police stations. Since the
Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch is overseeing the investigation
and he is the Nodal Officer to coordinate the investigation conducted
by the local police maintaining hierarchy of the respective District
Police Chief, we have no reason to think that the investigation would
not be conducted in an appropriate and effective manner so as to
ventilate the grievances of the complainants, at this stage of the
proceedings.
20. Thinking so, we have no doubt that interference is required
to the direction issued by the learned single Judge to hand over the
investigation of the entire crimes registered to the Crime Branch wing
of the State Police Chief.
21. We are also of the view that the order passed by the State Police
Chief dated 13.12.2019 referred to above in detail would suffice the
situation to ensure effective investigation. Accordingly, we set aside
the judgment of the learned single Judge to the extent of directing
handing over of the FIRs and conducting the investigation by the
Crime Branch wing of the State Police. The writ appeals are allowed in
part and to the extent specified above.
sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR,
CHIEF JUSTICE.
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY,
JUDGE.
Rv
APPENDIX OF WA 307/2021
APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE
POLICE CHIEF
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/True Copy/
PS to Judge.
Rv
APPENDIX OF WA 308/2021
APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE
POLICE CHIEF DATED 13.12.2019.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/True Copy/
PS to Judge.
Rv
APPENDIX OF WA 324/2021
APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE
POLICE CHIEF NO. D3-49096/2019/PHQ DATED 13-12-
2019.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/True Copy/
PS to Judge.
Rv
APPENDIX OF WA 415/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE
POLICE CHIEF DATED 13-12-2019
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/True Copy/
PS to Judge.
Rv
APPENDIX OF WA 416/2021
APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE
POLICE CHIEF DATED 13/12/2019.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/True Copy/
PS to Judge.
Rv
