Jamsheed vs District Police Chief
2021 Latest Caselaw 20389 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 17182 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

            JAMSHEED
            AGED 29 YEARS
            S/O. UMMER, MUNDATHODU HOUSE,
            TIRUR TALUK, OZHUR AMSOM,
            DESOM, KORADU,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

            BY ADV SRI. K. RAKESH

RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
            DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE,
            UPHILL, MALAPPURAM,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
            PIN - 676 505.
    2       THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
            TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
            PIN - 676 302.
    3       THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
            TANUR POLICE STATION,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
            PIN - 676 302.

            SRI. ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN - SR. GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.17182 OF 2021

                                        2




                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

alleging that respondents 2 and 3 have acted with

gross malafides in having taken into custody his

excavator, bearing Registration No.KL-54/C-6181;

along with a tipper lorry, bearing Registration

No.KL-55/A-6314, from his property on 18.08.2021,

without even preparing a proper mahazar. The

petitioner says that this has been done by the

said respondents to wreck vengeance on him

because he had earlier approached this Court

through W.P.C No.30144 of 2017, in which certain

remarks and observations had been made by this

Court against them.

2. The petitioner, therefore, prays that

respondents be directed to release the

aforementioned vehicles to him within a time

frame to be fixed by this Court; and further that WP(C).No.17182 OF 2021

1st respondent be directed to take necessary

action against respondents 2 and 3, having acted

in excess of jurisdiction and in colourable

exercise of power.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader-

Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan, however, submitted that

the afore allegations of the petitioner are

wholly untenable, evident from the seizure

mahazar - which has now been placed on record,

along with his memo dated 14.09.2021. He pointed

that, as is evident from the said mahazar, when

the vehicles were intercepted, its drivers ran

away and keys were deliberately broken, so that

it could not be removed from the site. He

submitted that, therefore, the petitioner's

allegations against respondents 2 and 3 are

merely a bid by him to create defence against the

legal proceedings now pending against him.

4. Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan further asserted

that the afore is the truth because, otherwise, WP(C).No.17182 OF 2021

the petitioner could have approached the

competent Court for release of the vehicles and

to prove himself innocent. He thus prayed that

this writ petition be dismissed.

5. In reply, Sri.K.Rakesh - learned counsel

for the petitioner, submitted that Exts.P3 and

P3(a) photographs will clearly show that vehicles

were taken into custody by respondents 2 and 3

from his premises and that this is manifest

because the intimation was given to the

jurisdictional Geologist was given by the said

Authorities only on 31.08.2021, which is more

than 12 days after the alleged seizure had been

made. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that

this writ petition be allowed.

6. I am afraid that, I cannot find favour

with the petitioner's contentions in this writ

petition because this Court is not enjoined to

act upon Exts.P3 and P3(a) photographs, unless

its metadata had been made available before this WP(C).No.17182 OF 2021

Court, as per the provisions of the Information

Technology Act. Obviously, in the absence of

such information, I have no method of evaluating

whether the photographs are genuine or otherwise.

7. That apart, as rightly stated by

Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan - learned Senior

Government Pleader, the petitioner's original

allegation in this writ petition was that there

was no mahazar, but this has been now belyed,

with the same being produced on record by the

respondents.

8. I am, therefore, of the firm view that

petitioner must invoke apposite remedies before

the competent Court; and if he is finally

exonerated or the said Court finds that the

allegations against respondents 2 and 3 have many

merit, certainly he can seek necessary action

against them under the provisions of the

applicable laws. Until such time as he is able

to prove himself innocent or to establish that WP(C).No.17182 OF 2021

the seizure of the vehicles is illegal, the

prayer in this writ petition for action against

respondents 2 and 3 cannot be countenanced.

In the afore circumstances, I close this writ

petition, leaving the afore liberties open to the

petitioner and making it clear that he can

approach either this Court or such other

competent Forum in the event he is able to

establish his allegations against respondents 2

and 3 to be genuine.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

SPR WP(C).No.17182 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.

230/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI DATED 11.08.2016. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE POLICE COMPLAINT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM ON 15.07.2021.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING VEHICLES AND ITS SEIZURE BY THE POLICE.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.