Kerala High Court
Ummani Muhammed vs State Of Kerala on 14 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA,
1943
WP(C) NO. 14305 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 UMMANI MUHAMMED,
AGED 90 YEARS,
W/O.M MUHAMMED, MADATHOTH HOUSE, PULINTHANAM,
POTHANICAD, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA-686 671.
2 SUHARA MUHAMMED,
AGED 55 YEARS,
W/O. M.M.MUHAMMED, MADATHOTH HOUSE, PULINTHANAM,
POTHANICAD, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA-686 671.
3 FARSANA SHAN,
AGED 35 YEARS,
W/O.SHAN MUHAMMED, MADATHOTH HOUSE, PULINTHANAM,
POTHANICAD, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA-686 671.
4 N.M.JOSEPH
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. MATHAI, PRESIDENT,
POTHANICAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NELLANIKOTT HOUSE,
PULINTHANAM (P.O), PARAMBANCHERI, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA-686 671.
5 BAIL BABY
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. BABY PAULOSE, THAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
POTHANICAD, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA-686 671.
6 JINU MATHEW, AGED 35 YEARS
W/O. BASIL K. GEORGE, KALLUNGAL HOUSE,
POTHANICAD, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA-686 671.
W.P.(C) No.14305 of 2021 (K)
2
7 SHEEBA SAJID
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O. SAJIDUMMER, PERUMANATHOTTATHIL HOUSE,
THURUTHIYIL LANE, EDAYAPURAM,
ALUVA, KERALA-683 101.
8 MUHAMMED SHAN
AGED 12 YEARS
S/O. SHAN MUHAMMED,
REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND LAWFUL
GUARDIAN-MRS. FARSANA SHAN, MADATHOTH HOUSE,
PULINTHANAM, POTHANICAD, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA-686 671.
9 FARAH SHAN
AGED 9 YEARS
D/O.SHAN MUHAMMED,
REPRESENTED THROUGH HER MOTHER AND LAWFUL
GUARDIAN-MRS. FARSANA SHAN, MADATHOTH HOUSE,
PULINTHANAM, POTHANICAD, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA-686 671.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KURIAKOSE VARGHESE
SRI.V.SHYAMOHAN
SMT.ANUSHMA M.KHAN
SRI.SUDEEP ARAVIND PANICKER
SRI.ROSHAN THAWANI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-635 007.
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
POTHANICAD POLICE STATION, PAINGATTOOR ROAD,
POTHANICAD, KERALA-686 671.
W.P.(C) No.14305 of 2021 (K)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.14305 of 2021 (K)
4
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are stated to be
'close relatives and colleagues' of a certain
Sri.Shan Muhammed, who has been admittedly
arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.473/2021
of Pothanicad Police Station, Ernakulam.
2. According to the petitioners, even
though they are relatives and colleagues of
Sri.Shan Muhammed, they are in no way related
to any of his actions nor have they been
arrayed as accused in the said crime; and
consequently that the Police Authorities
obtain no competence to cause any
investigation into them. They say that,
however, contrary to this, they have been
subjected to inhuman harassment and mental
torture by respondents 2 and 3, under the
pretext of locating Sri.Shan Muhammed and they
contend that this is contrary to the
W.P.(C) No.14305 of 2021 (K)
constitutional protection granted to them and
is in violation of the applicable laws which
govern the behaviour and conduct of police
officers during investigation.
3. Sri.Mathew A.Kuzhalanadan, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners, laid
out the case of his clients saying that, under
the unsubstantiated and baseless allegation
that they were shielding Sri.Shan Muhammed,
respondents 2 and 3 are making constant and
frequent searches and raids on their
residences, even in odd hours, and that too
without any valid warrant authorising it. He
then submitted that, to add insult to injury,
the phone of the 6th petitioner was seized by
the Police Officers under the guise of
investigation and her messages and other
information therein were scrutinised. He
further alleged that the said Officers then
illegally installed an application into the
W.P.(C) No.14305 of 2021 (K)
phone so as to track her on a constant basis.
4. Sri.Mathew A.Kuzhalanadan submitted
that the afore actions of respondents 2 and 3
are in flagrant disregard and violation of the
judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) and Others v.
Union of India (UOI) and Others [AIR 2017 SC
4161] and an affront to the inviolable
declarations in People's Union of Civil
Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (UOI) and
Others [AIR 1997 SC 568], which were made by
the Honourable Court for protection of the
constitutional liberties of citizens.
5. After saying as afore, Sri.Mathew
A.Kuzhalanadan submitted that since the
actions of respondents 2 and 3 fall into
various categories of offences under the
applicable laws, his clients have approached
the State Police Chief through a
W.P.(C) No.14305 of 2021 (K)
representation, seeking necessary action
against them; and prays that the said
Authority be directed to consider the same and
conclude the investigation thereon without any
avoidable delay. Sri.Mathew A.Kuzhalanadan,
adscititiously prayed that the respondents 2
and 3 be directed to cause no further
harassment to his clients, particularly
because the aforementioned Sri.Shan Muhammed
has already been apprehended and enlarged on
bail and since the investigation into his
crime is reported to have been now completed.
6. The afore submissions of Sri.Mathew
A.Kuzhalanadan were stoutly met by the learned
Government Pleader, Sri.E.C.Bineesh, arguing
that it is now become a pattern for the
relatives and other associates of an accused
to approach this Court alleging harassment.
He asserted that this case is a classic
example of such a tendency, pointing out that
W.P.(C) No.14305 of 2021 (K)
Sri.Shan Muhammed was absconding and evading
arrest for a long period of time, after being
arraigned as an accused in a crime involved
very serious offenses, including under the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). He submitted that the
police have not acted illegally or in excess
of their power, but only made visits to the
residences of the petitioners as part of the
investigation since they themselves admit that
they are "close relatives and colleagues" of
his. He, therefore, prayed that this writ
petition be dismissed.
7. When the afore rival positions are
assessed, it is rendered evident that the
petitioners contend that under the pretext of
investigation, respondents 2 and 3 have
committed various human rights violations
against them - the most grievous of them being
that they illegally violated the privacy of
W.P.(C) No.14305 of 2021 (K)
the 6th respondent, by inspecting her phone
and in installing a malware in it. However,
the petitioners themselves admit that they
have approached the State Police Chief with a
complaint against respondents 2 and 3 on these
lines and further that the investigation
against Sri.Shan Muhammed is now over. Since
the learned Government Pleader also affirms
that charge sheet has been filed in the crime
involving Sri.Shan Muhammed, I am of the view
that petitioners need not have any further
apprehension of any action against them by the
police henceforth. As regards the allegation
of the petitioners against respondents 2 and
3, I am of the opinion that this Court cannot
speak affirmatively on it one way or the other
in this writ petition in the absence of any
relevant materials and report, particularly
when they say that they have already
approached the State Police Chief with an
W.P.(C) No.14305 of 2021 (K)
appropriate complaint.
8. In the afore circumstances, I close
this writ petition, without entering into any
of the allegation of the petitioner; on its
merits; however, leaving full liberty to them
to invoke and pursue all remedies, as may be
available to them, before all competent
Authorities, including the State Police Chief.
Needless to say, if any complaint has
already been preferred by the petitioner
before the State Police Chief as asserted by
them, the said Authority will consider the
same in terms of law and communicate the
resultant orders to them, without any
avoidable delay.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.
ww
