Roy vs The District Police Chief
2021 Latest Caselaw 19028 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 14044 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

    1     ROY,
          AGED 59 YEARS
          S/O.P.S.MATHEW, PARAKKAL HOUSE, NALPATHEKKAR,
          TEEKOY VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM.

    2     SHINE,
          AGED 52 YEARS
          W/O.ROY, PARAKKAL HOUSE, NALPATHEKKAR, TEEKOY VILLAGE,
          MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM.

          BY ADVS.
          C.S.MANILAL
          S.NIDHEESH
          ACHUT M NAIR



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
          KOTTAYAM-686 002.

    2     THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
          PALA, KOTTAYAM-686 103.

    3     THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
          ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM-686
          121.

    4     PRAFULLA CHANDRAN,
          DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALA, KOTTAYAM-686
          575.

    5     BLESSON ABRAHAM,
          S/O.V.A.ABRAHAM, EETTIKALAYIL HOUSE, THOTTAPUZHASSERY
          P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 662.

          BY ADVS.
          GOVERNMENT PLEADER
          P.SUJITH KUMAR
 WP(C) NO. 14044 OF 2021           2

            SRI.E.C.BINEESH-GP


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 14044 OF 2021            3

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioners are stated to be husband and

wife and they say that they are being harassed by

the 4th respondent, who is the Deputy Superintendent

of Police, Pala, under the influence of the 5th

respondent - who is the owner of a Resort, adjacent

to their residential property.

2. According to the petitioners, the 4th

respondent often stays in the Resort owned by the

5th respondent and that under the latter's

influence, he is forcing them to accede to certain

illegal demands made by the said respondent. They

say that in furtherance of this complot between the

afore respondents, two crimes have been registered

against them; while a complaint dated 04.07.2021

has been foisted at the instance of another person,

who is also acting in collaboration with them.

3. The petitioners say that, as is evident from

the counter pleadings placed on record by the

respondents, the harassment meted out to them have

been for confutative reasons and therefore, pray

that the respondents 2 to 4 be directed not to

summon them to the police station or to intimidate

them in any manner and for a further direction to

the 4th respondent not to interfere in the civil

disputes between them and 5th respondent.

4. The petitioners further submit that they

have preferred Ext.P5 before the 1st respondent -

District Police Chief, making substantial

allegations against the 4th respondent, but that no

action has been taken thereon; and they thus

additionally pray that the same be directed to be

taken up and disposed of by the said respondent,

within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

5. I have heard Shri.C.S.Manilal, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners and

Shri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Government Pleader

appearing for the official respondents. Even though

notice has been validly served on respondents 4 and

5, they have chosen not to be present in person or

to be represented through counsel; inferentially

guiding me to the impression that they have nothing

to offer in opposition to the reliefs sought for by

the petitioners in this writ petition.

6. The learned Government Pleader,

Shri.E.C.Bineesh, submitted that a statement has

been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, wherein,

it has been explained as to how two crimes had been

earlier registered against the petitioners and

charge sheeted. He particularly pointed out to

Crime No.1301 of 2020 and Crime No.250 of 2021,

which were registered against the petitioners on

the basis of allegations made against them by the

5th respondent and his employees; and added that

these crimes have already been investigated and

charge sheets filed on 21.12.2020 and 23.02.2021

respectively.

7. The learned Government Pleader then

submitted that, while so, on 04.07.2021, a certain

Shri.N.T.Thomas - who is the neighbour of the

petitioners, filed a complaint against the

petitioners and that they were, therefore, summoned

to the Police Station for investigation into the

same. He, however, admitted that, as of today, the

petitioners have not been arrayed in any crime

based on the said complaint and that if this Court

is so inclined, they will be summoned only after

they are issued with a statutory notice, either

under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code or

under Section 41A thereof.

8. In reply, Shri.C.S.Manilal, learned counsel

for the petitioners, submitted that the influence

brought upon by the 5th respondent on the 4th

respondent is evident from the counter pleadings

itself and he vehemently asserted that even though

if his clients were charge sheeted in the two

crimes registered against them in February 2021,

they were again summoned by the 4th respondent to

the Police Station on in July, 2021, thus clearly

demonstrating the kind of influence that have been

brought upon him by the 5th respondent.

9. Shri.C.S.Manilal further submitted that his

clients have specifically stated in the pleadings,

as also in Ext.P1 complaint before the 1 st

respondent, that the 4th respondent is a regular

visitor in the resort owned by the 5 th respondent

and that it is he who is now foisting all the

crimes and complaints against them. He prayed that,

therefore, the 1st respondent be directed to take

up Ext.P1 complaint and cause an investigation

thereon without any avoidable delay.

10. When I examine the pleadings on record and

assess them from the touchstone of the submissions

made on behalf of the rival parties, it is evident

that the petitioners allege that it is at the

instance of the 4th respondent that all the crimes

have been registered against them. However, it is

unmistakable that certain complaints were preferred

against them by the employees of the resort owned

by the 5th respondent and that those were quickly

investigated into and charge sheets filed on

21.12.2020 and 23.02.2021, as far as Crime Nos.1301

of 2020 and 250 of 2021 are concerned.

11. Normally, therefore, the petitioners need

not have been summoned to the Police Station, but

the pleadings further say that another complaint

was made against them by the afore mentioned

Shri.N.T.Thomas on 04.07.2021 and that the

petitioners were, therefore, investigated into with

respect to the allegations therein.

12. Interestingly, even though the petitioners

allege that all these have been done because of the

influence of the 5th respondent has on the 4th

respondent, they do not have a case that they were

either manhandled or treated badly by the Police

Authorities under his command.

13. Therefore, even if it is assumed for the

sake of argument, that the 4th respondent had stayed

in the resort of the 5th respondent, I do not see

how it has the connection on the allegations in

this writ petition and I do not think that an

enquiry should be caused into it, merely because

the 4th respondent has stayed in the Resort in his

personal capacity, but without transgressing the

limits of decency, which is expected to be

maintained while he acts in his official capacity.

14. I am, therefore, of the firm view that it

will not require for this Court to direct the 1 st

respondent to cause an enquiry into Ext.P1, though

he is at liberty to do so if he finds sufficient

cause. However, I am certain that the petitioners

cannot be now called to the Police Station or

subjected to any further investigation, based on

the complaint dated 04.07.2021, without them being

issued with a notice under Section 41A of the CrPC.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition,

recording the afore submissions of the learned

Government Pleader and directing the Police

Authorities to ensure that the petitioners are not

summoned to the Police Station, with respect to any

investigation or complaint in future, except after

issuing them a notice under Section 41A of the

CrPC.

Before parting I must, however, record that

even though the 4th respondent has been arrayed in

his personal capacity, he has chosen not to file

any pleadings or to controvert any of the

allegations of the petitioners. However, a

statement has been filed, showing his official

designation by the learned Government Pleader and I

am of the view that this was improper when he had

been arrayed in his personal capacity as the 4 th

respondent. The statement, therefore, could have

been filed only by the 2nd respondent and not in the

name of the 4th respondent and to that extent I

cannot find the course adopted to find favour in

law.

However, since, as I have already said above,

the actions of the 4th respondent does not, prima

facie, bring out any connection on the allegations

in this writ petition, I choose not to say anything

further, but deem it appropriate to warn the

official respondents on this issue appropriately. I

do so.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14044/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 17.11.2019.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.11.2020 FROM SUNIL MATHEW TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16.11.2020 BY PRAKASH TO THE CI OF POLICE, ERATTUPETTA.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24.12.2020 BY 1ST PETITIONER TO SHO ERATTUPETTA.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24.12.2020 BY THE ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.02.2021 BY THE PETITIONERS.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION

ANNEXURE R2(B) TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.250/2021

ANNEXURE R2(C) TRUE COPY OF IAPS COMPLAINT NO.80117 DATED 5.7.2021

ANNEXURE R2(D) TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN W.P(C)NO.26477/2020.