Kerala High Court
Col.Varghese Menacheri vs Kerala State Commission For Protection ... on 22 November, 2023
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 31654 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 COL.VARGHESE MENACHERI
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.M.V. MATHEW, APARTMENT NO.12-C, SUMMERNEST
APARTMENTS, ALTHARA, GCDA ROAD, THOTTAKKATTUKARA,
ALUVA, PIN - 683108
2 E.F.JOSEPH @ SANTHOSH
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.E.M.FRANCIS, APARTMENT NO.5-A, SUMMERNEST
APARTMENTS, ALTHARA, GCDA ROAD, THOTTAKKATTUKARA,
ALUVA, PIN - 683108
3 KRISHNAKUMAR
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, APARTMENT NO.6-A, SUMMERNEST
APARTMENTS, ALTHARA, GCDA ROAD, THOTTAKKATTUKARA,
ALUVA, PIN - 683108
4 JAYAKRISHNAN
AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O.B.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, APARTMENT NO.9-C,
SUMMERNEST APARTMENTS, ALTHARA, GCDA ROAD,
THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, PIN - 683108
5 ABEY JOSE
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.P.L.JOSE, APARTMENT NO.11-B, SUMMERNEST
APARTMENTS, ALTHARA, GCDA ROAD, THOTTAKKATTUKARA,
ALUVA, PIN - 683108
6 SURESH KUMAR
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNA VARIER, APARTMENT NO.8-C, SUMMERNEST
APARTMENTS, ALTHARA, GCDA ROAD, THOTTAKKATTUKARA,
ALUVA, PIN - 683108
BY ADVS.
K.P.SREEKUMAR
P.M.SATHEESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD
RIGHTS, VANROSS JUNCTION, KERALA UNIVERSITY P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
PIN - 695034
WP(C) NO. 31654 OF 2023 2
2 SHAFEEQ AHAMED K.K.
FLAT NO.3B, SUMMERNEST APARTMENTS, ALTHARA,
GCDA ROAD, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, PIN - 683108
ADDNL. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
R3* ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT
POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA
*(ADDNL.R3 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
20.10.2023)
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 31654 OF 2023 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners impugn Ext.P7 order issued by the 1st respondent
- Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights
('Commission', for short), which, they say, has been issued on the
basis of a complaint apparently preferred by the 2nd respondent.
2. Sri.K.P.Sreekumar - learned counsel for the petitioners,
explained the facts involved in this case, saying that 2 nd respondent
appears to have filed a complaint against his clients alleging that his
daughter was forced to enter a room where elders were consuming
liquor; and that this has caused a psychological scar on her. He
asserts that this is far from truth, and that the girl in question was
treated like a daughter by everyone in the room because her mother -
the wife of the 2nd respondent, was also part of the party. He
submitted that, however, without considering any of these aspects in
its proper perspective, particularly that the little girl suffered no
prejudice as asserted, the 'Commission' has issued Ext.P7, thus
triggering an unnecessary investigation against his clients.
3. Sri.K.P.Sreekumar concluded his submissions, saying that
2nd respondent appears to be settling personal scores with his clients
on account of rivalry within the 'Apartment Complex'; for which, he
has unfortunately used his daughter. The learned counsel, therefore,
prayed that Ext.P7 be set aside.
4. Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose - learned Government Pleader,
in response, submitted that Ext.P7 is not an order as asserted by the
petitioners, but only a recommendation made by the 'Commission' to
cause proper enquiry. He submitted that an enquiry has now been
conducted and that its Report is on record, wherein, the District Police
Chief has stated that the girl in question was requested by some
persons in the party to bring some snacks to the room and that she did
so voluntarily and in a cheerful manner.
5. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the
Report further records that there had been no psychological impact on
the child at all and that it was only after her parents appear to have
tutored her, that she reflected some kind of inconvenience. He
submitted that, therefore, the competent Authority is willing to place
this Report before the 1st respondent, so that a final decision can be
taken by the said Commission.
6. I notice from the files that even though summons from this
Court has been validly served on respondent No.2, he has chosen not
to be present in person or to be represented through counsel; thus
inferentially guiding me to the impression that he has nothing to offer
in answer to the various assertions in this writ petition.
7. I must say upfront that, what is presented before me is a
rather unfortunate situation. If, as stated by the learned Government
Pleader, the Police Authorities have now found, through enquiry, that
the little girl did not have any consternation at the time when the
alleged incident happened, but was later tutored, then it presents a
very serious scenario. This certainly is a matter that the Commission
must look into, before any further action can be ordered to be taken
against the petitioners.
In the afore circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with
the following direction:
(a) The 3rd respondent - District Police Chief will ensure that the
reports settled by him, or by other Officers, with respect to the event
in question are placed before the 1st respondent - State Commission,
as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(b) On the afore reports reaching the 1 st respondent - State
Commission, it shall consider the same, after affording an opportunity
of being heard to the petitioners and to the 2 nd respondent and take a
final decision. This shall be done de hors Ext.P7 and dispassionately,
after assessing and evaluating all the relevant and germane inputs,
especially Exts.P1 to P3 reports also.
(c) I, however, clarify that any action by the 1 st respondent -
State Commission shall be done in such manner so as to cause no
further prejudice to the girl in question.
(d) The 1st respondent - State Commission shall complete
proceedings as ordered above as expeditiously as is possible, but not
later than four months from the date on which the reports in terms of
directions (a) are placed before it.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
akv/MC/22.11
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31654/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit- P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA EAST
POLICE STATION, DATED 20.01.2022
Exhibit- P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 08.06.2022
BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TO
THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF.
Exhibit- P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED
BY THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
TRICHUR RANGE TO THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
DATED 03.09.2022.
Exhibit- P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED
01.02.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE CIRCLE
INSPECTOR, EXCISE DEPARTMENT TO THE DEPUTY
EXCISE COMMISSIONER AND OBTAINED BY THE
PETITIONERS UNDER THE RTI ACT.
Exhibit- P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT
EXCISE COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT),
ERNAKULAM DATED 23.07.2022 OBTAINED BY THE
PETITIONERS.
Exhibit- P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2022 IN
W.P.(C)NO.26054 OF 2022 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit- P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 13.03.2023, ALONG WITH
COVERING LETTER DATED 11/9/23.
Exhibit- P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2123
