Kerala High Court
T.S.Gokul Das vs The State Police Chief on 12 April, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 14685 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 T.S.GOKUL DAS, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.T.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA,
THIRUNILATHIL MADAM, 115 A, KANIMANGALAMAYYAPPANKKAVU
RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION (KARA), KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680027
2 VIMAL KUMAR.T, AGED 41 YEARS, THIRUNILATHIL HOUSE,
AYYAPPANKAVU ROAD, KANIMANGALAM.PO., THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680027
BY ADVS.
P.SANJAY
A.PARVATHI MENON
BIJU MEENATTOOR
INDIRA.K.P.
PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH)
KIRAN NARAYANAN
RAHUL RAJ P.
MUHAMMED BILAL.V.A
MEERA R. MENON
BASILA BEEGAM
DEVIKA S. PRASAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, KERALA POLICE HQ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695010
2 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER
THRISSUR CITY, KERALA., PIN - 695010
3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
OLLUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLLUR, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680306
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NEDUPUZHA, F6X6+M9R,
KANIMANGALAM, THRISSURNEDUPUZHA, PIN - 680007
5 AJITH KUMAR SINGH, 9TH FLOOR, TBBL MEGHNA APARTMENT,
KOORKKENCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680007
WPC 14685/24
2
BY ADVS
AJEESH K SASI AKS - R5
P.M.SHAMEER - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WPC 14685/24
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be the brother of Dr.Sathi Devi
Singh, who is an ailing senior citizen; while, the 2 nd respondent to
be her caretaker. They say that the senior citizen is being assaulted
by her own husband, namely the 5 th respondent, and therefore,
that they took her into their protection; but which has now
resulted in a contra-allegation made against them, that they have
taken away her valuable gold ornaments and other articles with
confutative intent. They say that they have committed no such and
have no reason to take away any article of the senior citizen; and
that all these are being asserted by the 5 th respondent merely as a
ruse to cover up his own misdeeds.
2. The petitioners allege that, however, instead of the afore
imputation being instigated against the 5th respondent, the 4th
respondent - Station House Officer, is now harassing them, by
unnecessarily summoning them to the Police Station, under the
guise of a complaint preferred by the former. They thus pray that
the said respondent be directed not to harass them or cause any
prejudice to them in such manner.
3. In response to the afore submissions of Smt.A.Parvathi
Menon - learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Ajeesh K. Sasi -
learned counsel for the 5th respondent, submitted that, as evident
from the averments in the Writ Petition and the submissions made
at the Bar, the attempt of the petitioners is to take control of his
client's wife and thereby have access to her immeasurable and
valuable properties and gold ornaments. He submitted that his
client's articles are still inside the house, which has now been
taken illegal custody of by the petitioners; and that, therefore, he
had no other option but to approach the Police with a complaint,
which requires to be investigated. He contended that this Writ
Petition is only a complot by the petitioners to impede such
investigation and to hold on to the stolen wealth of his wife; and
concluded his submissions reasserting that every allegations made
against his client, including that he assaults his wife, are blatantly
wrong and have been urged solely for reasons that are extremely
questionable, to take control of not only the senior citizen, but
also her wealth. He thus prayed that this Writ Petition be
dismissed.
4. Sri.P.M.Shameer - learned Government Pleader, in
response, submitted that there appears to be certain disputes
between the parties, but that the Police have not intervened into
the same. He added that, however, the 5th respondent has preferred
a complaint, that the petitioners have stolen certain articles from
his wife and that they are in custody of her house, thus preventing
his entry into it; and hence that an investigation became
warranted. He added that the petitioners were not even summoned
to the Police Station, but only asked through phone as to what
they have to submit on this; but that this has now been
misinterpreted by them as 'harassment'. He contented that the
petitioners are bound to co-operate with the investigation and
prayed that any attempt to the contrary may not be permitted.
5. I have no doubt, adverting to the afore rival positions,
that, as far as the Police is concerned, they are obligated in law to
investigate every complaint within the Statutory Scheme. They
cannot harass any person, but they have all rights reserved to
them under the Statutory provisions to complete investigation and
to file necessary reports before the competent Forum/Court. This
cannot be impeded in any manner, since it is their bounden duty
to do.
6. That being said, when any investigation is being carried
on, the Investigating Officer must certainly confine himself to the
Statutory parameters and to the manner forensically sanctioned. No
party can be harassed; though necessary action can be taken to
ensure that the enquiries are completed in terms of law.
In the afore circumstances, I record the submissions of the
learned Government Pleader, that the petitioners are not being
harassed, but that they are only being involved in an investigation
on the basis of a complaint preferred against them by the 5 th
respondent; and thus direct the 4 th respondent - Station House
Officer, to complete the same in terms of law, without causing any
unnecessary prejudice to any of them.
Needless to say, the rival contentions of the parties against
each other, have not been looked into by this Court on merits and
they are all left open to be impelled and pursued by them in
future, as and when it becomes so warranted.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14685/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY FROM
11.07.2022 TO 15.07.2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
05.04.2024 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIVED
BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 05.04.2024
