Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Adersh G. vs The District Superintendent Of … on 1 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 18251 of 2010(F)


1. ADERSH G., SON OF N.GOPALAKRISHNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ALAN PAPALI

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :01/07/2010

 O R D E R
           K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
         ------------------------------------------------------
                 W.P.(C) No.18251 of 2010-F
            ----------------------------------------------
              Dated, this the Ist day of July, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

K.M.Joseph, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court complaining

harassment by respondents 2 and 3 police officers.

2. The prayers sought in the writ petition are as

follows:

“i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or

direction restraining respondents 2 and 3 from harassing

and threatening the petitioner stating that the petitioner is

the 12th accused in Crime No.423 of 2009 of Ezhukone

Police Station, which after investigation has ended up in a

Final Report taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of the

Ist Class-I, Kottarakkara as C.P.No.45/2010.

ii. to declare that the petitioner is not the 12th accused in

the Final Report filed by the Ezhukone Police in Crime

No.423/2009 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate

of the Ist Class-I Kottarakkara as C.P.No.45/2010.”

3. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as

follows: Petitioner is residing in the address shown in the writ

petition and is running a stationery shop for the last ten years.

Petitioner opens his shop at 7 a.m and closes by around 10

p.m. He has not so far been involved in any criminal cases.

WPC 18251/2010 -2-

On 10.5.2010, on instructions of the 3rd respondent a

policeman came to the petitioner’s shop and told the petitioner

that the petitioner is accused in Crime No.423/2009 of

Ezhukone Police Station. According to the petitioner, the

summons is addressed to the 12th accused who is one Kannan

residing at Krishna Mandiram near Surabhi Auditorium,

Nedumankavu Muri, Karipra Village. Petitioner told the

policeman that the name and address shown in the summons

is not that of the petitioner and petitioner has no connection

with any case. According to the petitioner, the policemen of

the Ezhukone Police Station is harassing and threatening him

stating that he is the 12th accused and he has to accept the

summons issued to the 12th accused. Petitioner preferred

Ext.P1 petition before Superintendent of Police, Kollam.

4. Petitioner has also filed Ext.P7 which is an

affidavit sworn by the defacto complainant wherein it is stated

that the deponent of the affidavit knows Sri.Adersh namely

the petitioner for a very long time and if he was involved in

the incident he would have definitely stated his name at the

time of investigation. He also stated that the petitioner was

not involved in the incident and he never told the name of 12th

WPC 18251/2010 -3-

accused as Kannan.

5. Learned Government Pleader was asked to get

instructions on this affidavit. Learned Government Pleader

would submit that apart from the deponent of Ext.P7 affidavit

there are some others namely one Manoj and Binu and they

have given statement. We do not think that this proceeding

may be appropriate for rendering a judgment regarding the

question relating to the mistaken identity in view of

circumstance brought to our notice. In our view, it is for the

petitioner to work out his remedies before the appropriate

forum and establish his case. Without prejudice to the rights

of the petitioner available in law and making it clear that we

have not pronounced on the question relating to the case of

mistaken identity, we dispose of the writ petition.

(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.

MS


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.118 seconds.