P.K.Chandrasekharan vs The Kerala State Human Rights ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11469 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
                   WP(C) NO. 26298 OF 2013


PETITIONER:

          P.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN
          AGED 76 YEARS
          S/O. V.P.KORUKUTTY NAIR,
          28/1983 B, AKASH NIKETH,
          NELLIKODE P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 016.

          BY ADV P.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN [PARTY IN PERSON]


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
          PIN-695 001.

    2     THE STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME DEPT.),
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

    3     THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
          POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

    4     DR. BALAGOPAL
          INDEEVARAM LEKKIDI KOOTTUPATHA,
          PALAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM P.O.,
          MANGALAM,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 001.

          BY ADVS.
          SMT.ASHA BABU
          SRI.S.M.PRASANTH
 W.P.(C) No.26298 of 2013            2



             SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR SR.
             SRI.G.RENJITH


OTHER PRESENT:

             SRI.NOUSHAD K.A
             GOVERNMENT PLEADER(SENIOR)



      THIS     WRIT     PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON      09.12.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.26298 of 2013          3




                    BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
             ===========================
                    W.P.(C) No.26298 of 2013
             ============================
               Dated this the 9th day of December, 2022


                              JUDGMENT

Petitioner is an octogenerian who has knocked on the doors of

this Court seeking to quash the order of the Kerala State Human Rights

Commission, refusing to order a re-investigation into the death of his

son. A further direction is sought to entrust the investigation of Crime

No.44/2005 of Pattambi Police Station to the CBCID.

2. On 22.01.2005, petitioner's son died, while undergoing

treatment at the Alshifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna. The reason for the

death was stated to be suicide by consuming sleeping pills on

14.01.2005. Contending that the death of petitioner's son was due to

abetment by the 4th respondent, petitioner and his wife approached

various authorities.

3. The investigation into the crime stated that petitioner's son

committed suicide and closed the matter. Thereafter, a petition was

filed before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (for short

'KHRC'), alleging suspicious circumstances leading to the death of his

son. By order dated 28.07.2009 in HRMP No.1304 of 2005, the

Commission directed an investigation to be conducted by an officer

not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch. Though

the Crime Branch had taken over the investigation in the meantime,

the order of KHRC was challenged by the 4th respondent in

W.P.(C) No.26027/2009 before this Court. By judgment dated

19.03.2013, this Court quashed the aforesaid order of the Commission

and allowed the writ petition and also directed the Commission to

restore the petition back to its files and dispose of the same afresh,

after granting an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Since,

pursuant to the order of KHRC, CBCID had taken over the

investigation, the judgment also interdicted the CBCID from

proceeding with the investigation. However, the judgment further

observed that, notwithstanding the said finding, the State Government

will be at liberty to consider on its own, the necessity to order any

further investigation into the crime. Thereafter, by order dated

30.07.2013, the KHRC closed the petition without making any

recommendation. It was observed in the said order as follows :-

"After final report was filed, petitioner ought to have filed a protest complaint and resorted to the remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Further, the Commissioner is of the opinion that from the facts available, it cannot be stated that because respondent filed a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, he has abetted suicide of the petitioner's son. The Commission also cannot order a re-investigation when no additional materials are produced warranting further investigation in the case. Death of the petitioner's son occurred more than eight years ago and no purpose also will be served by a re-investigation especially after considering the FI Statement and evidence available to this Commission. Section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act also acts against the petitioner. The Commission cannot recommend re-

investigation by a special agency without any additional material that too, years after the incident and filing of the final report. It cannot be stated that there is any human right violation warranting interference in this matter by the Commission. Hence this petition is closed without making any recommendation as requested by the petitioner."

4. The aforesaid order of the Commission is challenged in this

writ petition, contending that, there are various suspicious

circumstances surrounding the death of petitioner's son. It is also

alleged that petitioner apprehends that his son committed suicide due

to the intimidation, threat and coercion by the 4 th respondent under

the cover of forged cheques. It is also stated that the evidence on

record convincingly proves the complicity of the 4 th respondent in the

suicide of petitioner's son. The petitioner further pleaded that the

Human Rights Commission ought to have ordered a further

investigation by the CBCID and that no proper investigation was

conducted by any of the authorities into the allegations. The petitioner

also pleaded that he had no opportunity to file an objection to a report

since it was one filed under Section 174 which was not akin to that

under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C.

5. A statement was filed by the Investigating Officer on the basis

of the order of this Court dated 13.11.2013. It is mentioned in the said

statement that final investigation revealed that the deceased

Jayachandran had a medical shop at Shornur in Palakkad District and

that he had secret cash dealings with his uncle named Dr.

Balagopalan. During their cash dealings, Jayachandran had given a

self-cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- and entrusted the same to his uncle to

draw the amount from Co-operative Bank, Shornur. When the cheque

was produced before the bank, the same was dishonoured due to the

reason of 'insufficient fund'. When the cheque was dishonoured, the

uncle Dr.Balagopalan filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class

Magistrate's Court, Ottappalam and the court took the complaint on

file as S.T. No.1225/2003. In the meanwhile, the deceased

Jayachandran had again given a self-cheque to his uncle for

Rs.17,80,000/- with a fake signature (he is alleged to have forged the

signature of his friend K.H.Abdul Rasheed). When presented for

encashment, the cheque was dishonoured citing the reason that the

'signature differs', and 'insufficient funds'. Since deceased

Jayachandran occupied a respectable position in the society, police

concluded that he might have felt that he would be embarrassed when

the fraud and cheating was imposed to others (sic). So he took the

extreme step to consume excess sleeping pills on 14.01.2005 at night

and later succumbed to its effect'.

6. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner controverting the

statements of the investigating officer and also mentioned that the

statement of the investigating officer was made without any forensic

investigation.

7. It is pertinent to mention that in the meantime, by order of

the District Police Chief, Palakkad dated 30.03.2015, further

investigation was ordered into Crime No.44/2005.

8. A counter affidavit was filed by the 4 th respondent stating that

the writ petition is an abuse of the process of court as the allegations

are totally devoid of merits and that thorough investigation was

conducted by several officers and in none of those any offence has

been identified as committed by him and that he is being falsely

targetted by the petitioner. It was also submitted that the petitioner

has been repeating his old story which was rejected at several levels.

9. The case was posted on 01.11.2022 and since there was no

representation on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Public

Prosecutor was directed to instruct the SHO to serve notice to the

petitioner about the next date of hearing which was intially fixed for

07.11.2022, which was immediately changed to 14.11.2022. On

14.11.2022, since the learned Public Prosecutor informed that the date

of hearing intimated to the petitioner was 07.11.2022 instead of

14.11.2022, the case was adjourned to 28.11.2022. Though petitioner

has, thereafter, send a letter to the Court, which is made part of the

file on 28.11.2022, the case was adjouned to 05.12.2022. By order

dated 05.12.2022, petitioner was granted another opportunity and it

was conveyed to him through SHO, that if he so wished, he could

appear before the Court through video conferencing at 12.30 p.m. on

09.12.2022. In spite of the aforesaid opportunities, there was no

representation or appearance either by the petitioner himself or by

anyone on his behalf.

10. On 08.12.2022, the learned Public Prosecutor filed a memo

attaching the report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Pattambi Police

Station.

11. A perusal of the aforesaid report reveals that pursuant to

the order of the District Police Chief, Palakkad, on 30.03.2015, further

investigation of the case was conducted by the CBCID unit. It was also

stated that after investigation, it was concluded that the petitioner's

son had committed suicide by consuming excess sleeping pills and a

report to that effect was filed before the court.

12. The statement also mentions that on the basis of further

complaint by the petitioner, the State Police Chief, by order dated

20.04.2018 and followed by the District Police Chief, Palakkad by order

dated 15.04.2019 directed further investigation of the case to be

conducted under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. The further investigation

also concluded that nothing new could be brought out other than the

conclusion arrived at by the CBCID and final report dated 25.09.2021

were submitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate's Court, Ottappalam

stating that the petitioner's son had committed suicide by consuming

excess sleeping pills. It is also stated that the said report has been

accepted by the court.

13. In view of the above, the contentions raised by the

petitioner in this writ petition, challenging the finding of the Human

Rights Commission in Ext.P7, is not legally sustainable. Despite the

aforesaid challenge, since a further investigation was conducted by the

CBCID at the direction of the District Police Chief, Palakkad and again

at the direction of the State Police Chief, I am of the view that no

purpose would be achieved by yet another investigation.

14. Several agencies have investigated the case and all have

come to the same conclusion. Even though petitioner is aggrieved by

the conclusions in the said investigations, according to me, those

suspicions are not sufficient grounds to order yet another

investigation, that too, by another agency. The death of the

petitioner's son occurred in 2005 and more than 17 years have

elapsed. No malafides have been attributed to any of the investigating

officers, nor has any error been pointed out in the nature or manner of

investigation conducted.

15. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the

view that the writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jka

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26298/2013

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.44/2005 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION.

Exhibit P2 COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD.19.4.2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 COPY OF INVESTIGATION REPORT DATED NIL, FILED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OF 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4         COPY OF ORDER DTD.28.7.2009 IN
                   COMPLAINT.
Exhibit P5         COPY OF JUDGMENT IN 19578 OF 2009
                   DTD.24.2.2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P6         COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.26027/2009
                   DTD.19.3.2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P7         COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DTD.30.7.2013 OF THE
                   1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8         TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF THE
                   SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CB-CID HHW-II
                   DATED 20.06.2014



RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
Exhibit R4(a)              TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
                           THE DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Exhibit R4(b)              TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   JUDGMENT   DATED
                           24.02.2010 IN W.P.(C).NO.18578 OF 2009
Exhibit R4(c)              TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2012
                           OF    THE    NATIONAL     HUMAN    RIGHTS
                           COMMISSION.
Exhibit R4(d)              TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
                           30.07.2013 OF THE KERALA STATE HUMAN
                           RIGHTS   COMMISSION    ALONG   WITH   ITS
                           COVERING LETTER DATED 24.08.2013.
Exhibit R4(e)              TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE
                           DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE.
Exhibit R4(f)              TRUE   COPY    OF   THE    NOTICE   DATED
                           30.03.2015       ISSUED       BY      THE
                           DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHORNUR.