Kerala High Court
K.P. Beeran vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2024
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 2994 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
K.P. BEERAN
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O PAREETHUKUTTY,
RESIDING AT KEEZHEDATHU HOUSE,
KULAPPARACHAL .P.O., MURUKKUMTHOTTY,
SANTHAPARA,IDUKKI., DISTRICT, PIN - 685619
BY ADV RAJIV NAMBISAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT OF IDUKKI
IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN - 685619
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SANTHAMPARA POLICE STATION ,
SANTHAMPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN - 685619
BY SMT RASMI THOMAS, GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 2994 OF 2024 2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to the third respondent directing him not to
summon the petitioner to the police station unnecessarily and
without prior notice.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to the first and second respondent to see that the
third respondent is scrupulously following the standing order of
state police chief.
2. The petitioner contends that despite having a clean history for
over two decades, he is being persistently summoned by the third
respondent. He acknowledges his past involvement in criminal activities
and the convictions passed by the court. However, he asserts that he has
since undergone significant personal reformation and asserts that there is
no basis for him to continue being depicted as an individual prone to
criminal behavior. To substantiate his contention, the petitioner refers to
Exhibit P2 and Exhibit P4, which are information obtained under the RTI
Act from the jurisdictional police authorities confirming his absence from
criminal activities for the last 21 years. Furthermore, he relies on Exhibit
P6, a response from the Public Information Officer at Santhanpara Police
Station, which clarifies that the petitioner's name does not appear on
either in the Known Depredator (KD) List or the Goonda List. He contends
that the above documents underscore his transformation and his
successful reintegration into society as a law-abiding citizen. He contends
that the action of the 3rd respondent in summoning him is thoroughly
unjustified and that portraying him as a person with criminal tendencies is
both inaccurate and unfair.
3. In response, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions,
submitted that the petitioner is understood to be involved in Crimes in the
years 1993, 1994, 1995, and 2007. She states that the petitioner was
convicted in four cases and was acquitted in one. In 1999, he was listed as
a Known Depradator. However, in 2006, he was included on the list of
Dossier Criminals. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not known
to have been involved in any crimes after 2006.
4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been convicted of only one crime, and he has preferred a
revision petition challenging the finding of conviction, which is pending
before this Court.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by both sides
and have carefully gone through the records.
6. It is a matter of record and undisputed that the petitioner has
maintained a clear and unblemished record for over two decades,
demonstrating no involvement in criminal activities during this period. The
contention of the learned Government Pleader that his past predisposition
towards criminal behavior justifies ongoing police scrutiny lacks merit and
constitutes harassment. Such continuous summoning by the police, absent
any fresh information suggesting his involvement in criminal activities,
infringes upon his right to live in peace and to have his prior criminal
record consigned to oblivion. However, if the police are apprised of his
involvement in any new criminal activity and wish to investigate the same,
they are entitled to do so, provided their actions strictly adhere to the
procedures outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is because the
petitioner has the right to rehabilitation and societal reintegration, free
from the shadows of his past.
7. Resultantly, there will be a direction to the respondents to
refrain from initiating any action that could be construed as harassment
towards the petitioner or any attempts to summon him based solely on his
historical criminal involvements. It is made clear that if any credible
evidence is obtained of the petitioner's involvement in recent criminal
activities, the Police may proceed in strict accordance with the legal
stipulations, including the issuance of a notice under the conditions
specified in Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The writ petition is disposed of.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
DCS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2994/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P 1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT TO SANTHAMPARA POLICE
UNDER RTI ACT DATED 23.11.2021.
Exhibit P 2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLAY OF SANTHAMPARA POLICE,
DATED 19.12.2021
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT TO KOTHAMANGALAM
POLICE UNDERRTI ACT DATED 23.112021.
Exhibit P 4 TRUE COPY OF REPLAY OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE
DATED 21.12.2021
Exhibit P 5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT TO SANTHAMPARA POLICE
UNDER RTI ACT DATED.1.3.2023
Exhibit P 6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLAY OF SANTHAMPARA POLICE
DATED .30.3.2023
