IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33511 of 2010(L)
1. G.BALACHANDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. THE PRINCIPAL SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
6. C.S.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :02/02/2011
O R D E R
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
***********************
W.P(C) No.33511 of 2010-L
*****************************
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
The petitioner has come to this Court complaining of police
harassment and issue of directions to respondents 1 to 5 to
ensure that the police officials do not vex and harass him at the
instance of the 6th respondent, a retired high ranking police
official.
2. According to the petitioner, the 6th respondent was
guilty of committing criminal offences against the petitioner and
his wife. Prosecution was launched. It ultimately ended in
conviction. The conviction was upheld by all courts upto the
Supreme Court. According to the petitioner, the 6th respondent,
who is a very influential person, prevailed upon the Government
to commute/remit the punishment imposed to him. This obliged
the petitioner to approach this Court and this Court set aside the
order of remission granted in favour of the 6th respondent.
3. Appeals were preferred against that order of the
learned Single Judge by the 6th respondent as well as the State.
According to the petitioner, the Bench which was hearing the
W.P(C) No.33511 of 2010-L 2
appeal wanted to ascertain whether parties can settle their
disputes and the petitioner can compound the offences alleged
against the 6th respondent. The petitioner is not willing for any
such composition, asserts the petitioner. The petitioner alleges
that there was a concerted attempt to vex and harass the
petitioner for the reason that the petitioner was not willing to
compound the offences alleged against the 6th respondent. It is
contended that succumbing to the influence wielded by the 6th
respondent, the 4th and 5th respondents took the petitioner into
custody and detained him at the Sakthikulangara Police Station.
There, he was allegedly compelled to affix his signature on some
blank sheets in a book. The petitioner aired an apprehension in
the petition that such signatures are likely to be misused by the
6th respondent to make it appear that the petitioner has settled
the disputes and compounded the offences allegedly committed
by the 6th respondent against him. It is, in these circumstances,
that the petitioner came to this Court seeking issue of directions
to the respondent police officers to desist from their attempt to
vex and harass him.
4. The 6th respondent has entered appearance.
According to the 6th respondent, the allegations are totally false.
W.P(C) No.33511 of 2010-L 3
The 6th respondent submits that the appeals have been decided
in favour of the 6th respondent and that there is no merit in the
contention that the 6th respondent had made any attempt to
obtain signatures of the petitioner in blank papers to enable him
to use the same to succeed in the appeals, which were pending
before the Division Bench.
5. The learned Government Pleader appears for
respondents 1 to 5. The learned Government Pleader submits
that it is true that a complaint was received from one
Krishnamma, allegedly a neighbour of the petitioner. That
complaint was registered as a petition. No crime was registered.
The petitioner and the said Krishnamma were called to the police
station. An attempt was made to ensure that the parties settle
their disputes. They did not. Theirs was a civil dispute. Parties
were directed to approach the civil court. The parties including
the petitioner, were asked to affix their signatures in the petition
registered. The petitioner is relying upon that innocuous
circumstance to raise false and untenable allegations against the
6th respondent as also the other police officials.
6. It is now evident that the signature was obtained in
the petition register. We do not think it necessary to delve
W.P(C) No.33511 of 2010-L 4
deeper into the question as to whether it was a blank of the
register or the signature was obtained after entries were made
in the register. At any rate, we do not find any merit in the
contention that signatures were obtained in order to enable the
6th respondent to falsely claim that the dispute was settled and
the offences were compounded by the petitioner.
7. We are not, in these circumstances, persuaded to
agree that any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India can, need or deserve to be issued.
8. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances,
dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
rtr/