K.J.Stephen vs State Police Chief
2021 Latest Caselaw 288 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

   WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.12971 OF 2020(V)


PETITIONER:

               K.J.STEPHEN
               AGED 86 YEARS
               S/O. LATE K. T. JOSEPH, KOIKKARANPARAMBIL HOUSE,
               RANIMUDI ESTATE, VAGAMON, PEERUMEDU, IDUKKI.

               BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE POLICE CHIEF
               POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

      2        DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, IDUKKI
               THODUPUZHA - PULIYANMALA ROAD, IDUKKI COLONY POST,
               CHERUTHONI, KERALA - 685 602.

      3        SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               VAGAMON POLICE STATION, PULLIKKANAM - ELAPPARA ROAD,
               VAGAMON, KERALA - 685 503.

      4        DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
               PALA DIVISION, KOTTAYAM - 686575.

      5        T. A. ANTONY
               DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
               CRIME BRANCH, IDUKKI - 685 602.

      6        * ADDL R6
               THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               IDUKKI.
               * ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS PER ORDER DATED
               11/12/2020 IN WP(C)12971/2020.

               R1-4 BY SRI PP THAJUDEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
               R5 BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD            ON
06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.12971 OF 2020             2




                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a senior citizen. He is the 1st accused in Crime No.

140 of 2019 of the Vagamon police station registered under Sections 465,

468, 419, 120B, 420 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said

crime, the son of the petitioner is arrayed as the 2nd accused. There are

other accused as well. The de facto complainant in the said crime is the

estranged wife of the 2nd accused.

2. The 5th respondent herein, who has been arrayed in his

personal capacity, is the investigating officer in the said crime. The

petitioner states that the 5th respondent, acting hand in glove with his

daughter-in-law, started harassing the petitioner and his family members.

He contacted a close friend of the petitioner herein and demanded a sum

of Rs.15 lakhs to reprieve the petitioner from the cooked up allegations.

The petitioner approached this Court and by Ext.P2 order, he was granted

an order of anticipatory bail. However, the 5th respondent continued to

harass him. In the said circumstances, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3

complaint before the 1st respondent narrating his grievance and seeking

change of investigating officer. However, no action was taken by the 1st

respondent. Later, he submitted Ext.P4 representation before the State

Police Chief. The petitioner further states that he was the owner of

extensive properties at Vagamon and those properties were sold to several

persons on the strength of valid title deeds. Those persons have put up

constructions after obtaining permits and licences. After registration of the

crime, the revenue authorities refused to accept basic tax from the

purchasers. This led the purchasers to approach the petitioner and

threaten him. According to the petitioner, this is the handiwork of the 5th

respondent. He would state that his daughter-in-law instituted O.S.No.161

of 2010 claiming rights over 10 Acres of property and the suit was decreed

by the trial court and confirmed in appeal by the Subordinate Judge,

Kattappana. Against the judgment rendered by the courts below, the

petitioner has approached this Court by preferring R.S.A.No.827 of 2018

and by Ext.P1 order dated 29.3.2019, status quo of the disputed property

as it existed on the lower court's decree was ordered to be maintained. In

spite of the above, several persons at the instance of the 5th respondent

are frequenting the home of the petitioner, where he is residing with his

aged wife and they are being threatened with physical harm. Seeking

protection for his life and liberty, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5

complaint before the respondents 2 to 4. According to the petitioner, no

assistance was rendered by the said respondents. It is in the afore

circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a

direction to the 4th respondent to afford adequate protection to the life

and property of the petitioner and also for a further direction to the 2nd

respondent to initiate action on Ext.P5 complaint submitted by him and for

incidental reliefs.

3. The learned Government Pleader has filed a detailed

statement. It is submitted that the 5th respondent is the investigating

officer in Crime No.140 of 2019 of Vagamon police station. In the said

crime, the allegation against the petitioner, his son and the other accused

is that with intent to make unlawful gain, the accused created bogus pattas

in respect of about 10.52 Acres of land owned by the de facto complainant

and thereafter, sold the same to various persons. Though the investigation

was initially conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vagamon police

station, it was later transferred to the 5th respondent, who is the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch. Investigation has revealed

that on 26.5.1989, the de facto complainant, the petitioner and their

relatives purchased about 54.7 Acres of land covered under Sy. No.813 of

Vagamon village, which property is known as Ranimudy Estate. After

purchase of the property as aforesaid, the purchasers obtained illegal

possession of 110 Acres including 55.3 Acres of non patta Government

land, lying adjacent to the patta land. Investigation has revealed that the

accused No.1 and his son have forged pattas in the name of non-existent

persons and after registering a power of attorney in the name of the 3rd

accused, assigned the property to various persons. The total extent of

Government land involved is about 46.22 Acres and the loss caused to the

Government is estimated at Rs.60 Crores. Besides the sale of Government

land as aforesaid, the accused are also alleged to have created bogus

pattas in respect of about 54.7 Acres of patta land. Investigation has

revealed that the revenue authorities have mistakenly shown the survey

number of patta land as 813 instead of 724, which mistake was utilized by

the accused for transferring non patta land. It is further stated that the

investigating officer has only diligently conducted the investigation with a

view to bring out the collosal fraud. It is in order to stifle the investigation

that false accusations are raised against the investigating officer.

4. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit reiterating

the very same aspects. In his counter, the 5th respondent states that all

that he has done is effectively investigate the matter and his diligence has

disturbed the petitioner leading to the filing of the writ petition. It is

further stated that he has never instigated any person to threaten the

petitioner and the assertions made are all false.

5. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner herein

controverting the affidavit filed by the learned Government Pleader as well

as the 5th respondent. In the reply affidavit, he has reiterated the entire

facts and states that the petitioner and his wife who are senior citizens are

living in constant fear. It is further stated that several persons had come to

the residence of the petitioner herein and he was asked to withdraw the

complaint lodged against the 5th respondent. He has also produced Ext.P6

affidavit sworn by a certain M.A. Navas, wherein he asserts that the

petitioner and the said person are family friends and that a sum of Rs.15

lakhs entrusted with him by the petitioner was handed over by him to the

5th respondent.

6. I have anxiously considered the submissions advanced and

have gone through the entire records.

7. The prime accused in a crime has filed this writ petition

alleging that the investigating officer has been harassing him at the

instance of the de facto complainant. From the statement filed by the

learned Government Pleader, it appears that the investigation is still in the

early stages. Very serious accusations of forging pattas and encroachment

of Government land are raised against the petitioner. It is submitted

across the bar by the learned Government pleader that the District

Collector has already identified 12 bogus pattas issued in the above

manner and those pattas have also been cancelled. There cannot be any

doubt that the allegations are extremely grave and require to be

investigated in much detail.

8. The specific case of the petitioner is that he is living under

constant threat and fear of those persons who had purchased the property

from him. He asserts that they are raising threats at the instance of the

5th respondent who is the investigating officer. It is curious to note that

the petitioner has not arrayed any of the assignees as respondents in this

writ petition. Nowhere in Ext.P3 and P4 complaint has the petitioner

stated that the purchasers of the property, at the instance of the 5th

respondent had approached him and raised threats. All that is stated in

Ext.P5 is that certain persons at the instance of the 5th respondent have

come to his house and have threatened him demanding that the complaint

lodged by him against the police officer should be withdrawn. There are

serious inconsistencies in the version of the petitioner in Exts.P3 to P5

complaints and the assertions in the writ petition. The most serious

accusation against the 5th respondent is the handing over of a sum of

Rs.15 lakhs by a family friend for refraining from harassing the petitioner.

In paragraph No.5 of the writ petition, the petitioner, without naming any

person has averred that as demanded by the 5th respondent, a sum of

Rs.15 lakhs was paid by his son to rescue him from harassment and

hardship. However, along with the reply affidavit, the petitioner has filed

an affidavit by a certain M.A.Navas, who states that it was the petitioner,

who had handed over a sum of Rs.15 lakhs and the said amount was

handed over to the DYSP. In other words, the petitioner has no consistent

version in respect of the handing over of the money as well.

9. Having considered the entire facts, I am of the considered

opinion that the institution of the writ petition is only to put a spanner into

the investigation which is being diligently conducted by the 5th

respondent. If any third party is causing threats to the petitioner, it is for

him to approach the 3rd respondent and lodge a complaint giving exact

details of the identity of the person and the manner of threat. The 3rd

respondent shall look into the complaint and if the same is found genuine,

shall afford adequate protection to the petitioner and ensure that no harm

is caused. The petitioner on his part shall cooperate with the investigation

as directed by this Court in Ext.P2.

With those directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE NS

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1          TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2019.

EXHIBIT P2          TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2019
                    IN BA NO.4486/2019.

EXHIBIT P3          TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
                    3.4.2020.

EXHIBIT P4          TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
                    10.5.2020.

EXHIBIT P5          TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
                    24.6.2020.

EXHIBIT P6          TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
                    23/6/2020