Kerala High Court
Suo Motu vs Mr.Santhosh Kumar. J on 5 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 2815 OF 2008
PETITIONER:
SUO MOTU
BY ADV SMT.K.V.RESHMI (STATE BRIEF)
RESPONDENTS:
1 MR.SANTHOSH KUMAR. J.
S.I. OF POLICE, POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION,,
TRIVANDRUM.
2 ANILKUMAR
C.NO.6650, CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM.
3 BABUJI NADAR
HEAD WARDER, CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM.
4 THE SUPERINTENDANT
CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM.
5 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION.
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SHIBA M SAMUEL
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR
SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON 05.04.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP(C)No.2815 of 2008
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
---------------------
WP(C) No.2815 of 2008
---------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
One Anilkumar, C.No.4363, District Jail, Thiruvananthapuram, who
was undergoing life imprisonment in connection with SC No.105/2000
on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-V, Ernakulam complained
about an incident which took place on 23.5.2007. He states that he was
allotted the work in the canteen in the jail and on 23,5.2027 at about
1.30 p.m., he went to the flour mill with an escort as a part of his duty.
Sri. Santhosh Kumar J, SI of Police and three constables asked him
about another convict in connection with the throwing of explosives on a
Police Constable in a civil dress on a previous occasion outside the
compound wall of the jail. took him into custody and manhandled him.
Anilkumar was later produced before the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, and a case was registered against
him for escaping from jail. The convict submitted that he was escorted
by Babuji Nadar, the Head Warden of the District Jail and pleaded not to
take him into custody. Still, the Sub Inspector of police and other police
officers discarded it and took him into the police station manhandled
him and registered a false case. Accordingly, he requested for steps to
be taken against Sub Inspector Sri. Santhosh Kumar J and others who
forcefully took him to custody manhandled him and registered a false
case. This writ petition was registered following the enquiry conducted
by the Principal District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram and also the report
of the portfolio judge.
2. It is reported that, immediately after the arrest of
Mr.Anilkumar, the Superintendent of Central Prison, alerted Poojappura
Police Station and requested in writing to locate the police vehicle and
police party who had abducted the convict. Till 3.50 p.m., Poojappura
Police did not inform the Superintendent or any other prison authority
regarding the arrest of the prisoner, who according to the police,
escaped from the Prison. When the Director General of Police (Prisons)
contacted at about 3.55 p.m. the Commissioner of Police it came to
know that the convict was arrested by the Poojappura Police Sub
Inspector and he was detained in that station based on Crime
3. Though the Superintendent, of Central Prison, went to
Poojappura Police Station, at 4. p.m., in uniform and requested the
release of the convict who had not tried to escape from the prison but
was sent out of prison for grinding rice, with an escort, he was not
released. Besides the Sub Inspector had insulted the Superintendent,
who is in the rank of Superintendent of Police. The convict suffered
assault from the Sub Inspector and he had undergone treatment at
General Hospital. It is further reported that there is no complaint from
the Jail authorities regarding the escape of the prisoner and it is
surprising how the S.I. concluded that the convict prisoner escaped
from the Central Prison and registered a case under section 225 B IPC.
Mr Babuji Nadar was made the second accused in the case. He was
produced before the magistrate who remanded him he was released on
bail much later.
4. A perusal of the entire pleadings and the reports including that
of the Principal District Judge, the report of the Honourable Judge in
charge of the prison petitions, the affidavit filed on behalf of the
Government, the counter affidavit of the first respondent -Sub Inspector
of Police makes it abundantly clear that the registration of the crime
and arrest of the petitioner was totally unwarranted. The statement
taken from the convict then clearly speaks about the manhandling and
his being taken to the hospital where also the complainant was
assaulted by the police officer.
5. Though there is an attempt on the part of the government to say
that there was a rift between the prison department and the police
department and that the arrest was due to a misunderstanding, the
same cannot be accepted at all. It was a case where a convict was
arrested and a case registered for no reason. The case of the assault
also has to be seen in the background of the events that have taken
place.
6. By a strange turn of events, Anilkumar had filed an affidavit on
17.8.2023 stating that he got employment arranged through the first
respondent and that he does not have any subsisting grievance. A
written submission was also filed on behalf of his lawyer on 30.6.2023
stating that the first respondent had not manhandled or ill-treated him
in any manner and that he has no complaint against the police or first
respondent. Under such circumstances, he prayed that all further action
be dropped.
7. The subsequent filing of the affidavits by Anilkumar and the
averments therein shows that it was an afterthought to save the
respondents by retracting from the earlier statements in a case where
the incident is admitted by all the respondents. Even the enquiry
conducted by the Principal District Judge and also the subsequent
events made the Honourable Judge in charge of the prison petitions
seek the permission of the Chief Justice to register a suo motu writ
petition.
8. In the wake of the above developments, this Court by order
dated 13.2.2024 directed the State Police Chief to file an affidavit as to
the antecedents of the first respondent from his commencement of
service up till now. An affidavit has been filed showing the following
details:
"5. The details of the disciplinary proceeding or complaints
against Sri.Santhosh Kumar J (PEN 146708), Inspector of
Police Cyber Operations since 23.05.2007 and rewards since
his entry into the uniformed force as per the service records
are listed below:
Date of entry into service - 22/09/2004 FN as SI trainee (GE)
6. Recognition/Rewards
Sl No. Recognition/Awards Total
1 Chief Minister's Police Medal (2018) 1
7. Disciplinary Proceedings and Complaints
An oral Enquiry was ordered as per GO(Rt)No.2874/05 of Home
(H) Department dated 21.11.2005 against Sri.Santhosh Kumar J
for the investigation lapses committed by him in the
investigation of Crime No.299/02 U/s 324, 323, 427, 394 IPC
while he was working as Sub Inspector of Police at Palluruthy
Police Station in Kochi City based on the report of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau,
Ernakulam in VE/11/2003/CRE dated 04/09/2003. The Oral
Enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Kochi City as per GO(Rt) No.524/06/Home dated 01/03/2006. As
per the PR minutes submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the
allegation raised against Sri.Santhosh Kumar J, SI of Police could
not be proved. Hence he was exonerated from the charges
levelled against him vide GO(Rt)No.2078/2011/Home dated
14/07/2011.
On perusal of the records, it is found that a Non-Oral Enquiry
was also ordered against Sri.M K Sulfikkar, DySP, Sri.J Santhosh
Kumar, IoP, Sri.K.Sudheer, SI of Police and Sr.V.M.Sreekumar, SI
of Police, vide PHQ Order No. G2-84784/2018 dated 22/06/2018,
for perfunctory investigation and lapses committed by them in
the course of investigation of crime No.496/2016 of Pozhiyoor
Police Station, with the Superintendent of Police, Railways as the
Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the Non-Oral
Enquiry and submitted PR Minutes along with connected
documents holding the charges levelled against the delinquent
officer as proved. The disciplinary action was disposed of by the
disciplinary authority by awarding a punishment of 'Censure' to
Sri.Santhosh Kumar, IoP for direction of duty vide Order
No.G2/84874/2018 dated 20/03/2020."
9. As stated above, the explanation given on behalf of the
respondents, both by the police officer concerned as well on the part of
the Government, justifying the conduct of the officer is not acceptable
However, taking note of the passage of time, and the subsequent
affidavits filed by the convict, I am not inclined to give any further
direction to proceed against the first respondent though the defence of
the Government for not taking any action citing the pendency of the
writ petition is not tenable. The fact remains that Anilkumar was
detained illegally which seriously infringed his constitutionally
guaranteed rights which the respondents were bound to protect. I also
reckon the remorse expressed by the officer concerned, the details of
his service and accordingly suggested to the learned counsel for the
first respondent, whether his client is prepared to pay reasonable
compensation to the first respondent to put a quietus to the dispute.
10. Learned senior counsel, on instructions from his client, the
first respondent has graciously accepted the offer put by the court and
accepted the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- suggested by the Court. It is made
clear that the said amount is not being paid on account of any
adjudication made by this Court towards any liability, but it is only to
bring about the quietus to the issue
11. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Secretary of the
District Legal Service Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, before whom the
complainant Sri. Anilkumar and the first respondent will appear on 16-
4-2024 at 11.00 a.m., to ensure payment of Rs.1,00,000/- by the first
respondent to Anilkumar and file a report regarding that before this
Court within a week thereafter.
The service rendered by the amicus curiae is appreciated.
In the light of the above, the writ petition is closed.
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
dlk/11.3.2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2815/2008
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R2 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 8/06/2023
