IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10254 of 2010(Q)
1. SHAJI, AGED 29 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
... Respondent
2. ADDL.SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :04/06/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(c).No.10254 of 2010
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the complainant
in a private complaint filed by him as C.M.P.No.11186/2006
before the J.F.C.M, Chalakudy against the Sub Inspector of
Police and four other police constables alleging custodial
violence, seeks a direction to set aside Ext.P4 order passed
by the Government refusing sanction to prosecute the
aforesaid accused persons and a further direction to Home
Secretary to consider Ext.P2 application for sanction afresh
after obtaining a proper enquiry report from the
Superintendent of Police, Thrissur.
2. According to the petitioner, on a complaint filed by
his wife alleging an offence punishable under Section 498A
IPC, the Mala Police had taken him into custody on
24.7.2006 in Crime No.260 of 2006 of Mala Police Station
W.P(c). No. 10254 of 2010
2
and while in Police custody he was manhandled by the
accused Police Officers. In order to prosecute them for the
torture committed by them he had filed the above private
complaint as C.M.P.No.11186/2006 before the J.F.C.M,
Chalakudy. As per Ext.P2 application he sought
prosecution sanction and as per Ext P4 order dated
14.7.2009, the sanction prayed for was declined. Hence
this writ petition.
3. One of the main contentions raised by the petitioner
was that the prosecution sanction was declined without
calling for any report from the Superintendent of Police,
Thrissur (3rd respondent) .
4. The learned Public Prosecutor in charge of the case,
after instructions, submitted that the said contention of the
petitioner is not correct. The prosecution sanction was
refused after considering the report of the Superintendent
of Police. A copy of the said report is produced before me
and it is argued that it was acting on the said report that
W.P(c). No. 10254 of 2010
3
the Government passed Ext.P4 order. It is also stated that
on the petitioner complaining of body pain presumably due
to sitting and lying down on the floor of the Police Station
during night on 25.7.2006 he was taken to the Government
Hospital, Mala from where the Doctor examined him and
gave him first aid and that the petitioner did not make any
complaint of assault either to the Doctor or to the
Magistrate before whom he was produced along with the
remand report.
5. I do not think that Ext.P4 order has been passed
arbitrarily and without even calling for a report from the
Superintendent of Police, Thrissur. The petitioner cannot
be granted any of the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition.
This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj