IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15132 of 2004(B)
1. P.K. JOY, VALIYAPULINCHAKAL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. SUGATHAN, HEAD CONSTABLE,
4. GEORGE, FORMER SUB INSPECTOR OF
For Petitioner :SRI.JOMY GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :19/06/2009
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.C. No.15132 of 2004
----------------------------------------
Dated, 19th June, 2009
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with a prayer to issue a
writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the Ist respondent State of Kerala to
give an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation to the
petitioner for the torture and atrocities to which he was
subjected at Ettumanoor police station by respondents 3
and 4. It is also prayed for a direction to the 2nd
respondent to register a crime against respondents 3
and 4 and also sought for taking departmental action
against the above respondents.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 26.4.2003,
at about 12 noon, a phone message was received by the
petitioner’s mother from the 3rd respondent directing her
to send the petitioner to the police station in order to
verify whether one Binoy Thomas, a former worker of
the petitioner, had got burn injuries on his hand while
WPC NO.15132/04.
-:2:-
he was working with the petitioner. According to the
petitioner, in pursuance of such telephone message, he
along with the local Panchayat Member, his father and
driver went to the police station where he was brutally
manhandled and put him in the lockup room without any
dress. The petitioner was not released from the police
station till his advocate interfered along with the
petitioner’s father. It is also averred that he was admitted
in the Medical College hopital, Kottayam and had
undergone treatment. In support of the above prayer,
the petitioner very much relied upon the order of the
Kerala Lok Ayuktha, i.e Ext.P8 order. In Ext.P8 order Lok
Ayuktha found that the allegation of the petitioner is
correct and, accordingly, it was suggested that the case
against the Sub Inspector, P.J.George may be got
transferred to Crime Branch. It is also directed that
enquiry may be got ordered by the Director General of
police against the 3rd respondent Head Constable. By the
said order, the Lok Ayuktha has also suggested that the
WPC NO.15132/04.
-:3:-
petitioner can claim compensation from the 3rd respondent
Head Constable from any other court. It is on the basis
of the above observations and suggestions, the petitioner
approached this Court with the above prayer.
3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd
respondent. In the counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent
has controverted all the factual averments taken by the
petitioner in this writ petition and he set out an entirely
new version regarding the alleged incident. It is
specifically pleaded in the counter affidavit that the 3rd
respondent was not aware about the report alleged to
have been made by the Superintendent of police stated in
Ext.P7 before the Lok Ayuktha. It is also the case of the 3rd
respondent that without giving any opportunity to the 3rd
respondent, the Lok Ayuktha simply accepted Ext.P7
report and based upon the said report, Ext.P8 order was
passed. Therefore, according to the 3rd respondent, the
order of Lok Ayuktha and its observation and finding in
Ext.P8 is incorrect and baseless and the same cannot be
WPC NO.15132/04.
-:4:-
acted upon because of its arbitrariness and illegality.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the respondents.
5. Going by the facts involved in the matter, it can
be seen that the facts are not beyond dispute and
regarding the incident, divergent versions are given by
the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent. In this
juncture, it is relevant to note that when the
Superintendent of Police in his report, Ext.P7, reported in
favour of the petitioner, the C.I. of police Ettumanoor who
after conducting the investigation as directed by the
Superintendent of police, Kottayam, made report as
evidenced by Ext.P5 in which it is reported that the
petitioner herein created false complaint because of his
enmity towards the 3rd respondent since the 3rd respondent
detected the crime against the petitioner. Thus from the
petitioners on documents, namely, Exts.P5 and P7, it can
be seen that there is a serious dispute regarding the
entire facts involved in the case. It is also pertinent to
WPC NO.15132/04.
-:5:-
note that when Ext.P8 order was passed, admittedly, 3rd
respondent was not heard and he was not giving an
opportunity to cross examine either the Superintendent
of Police who prepared Ext.P7 or the witnesses he
questioned and also the 3rd respondent has no
opportunity to peruse the records which relied on by the
Superintendent of police for preparing Ext.P7 report. Under
such a situation, it is unwarranted for this Court to
become a party to this dispute.
6. It is also relevant to note that instead of invoking
the jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the
Constitution of India , if the petitioner wants to agitate
the issue and to seek relief, he can effectively resort to
the other remedies which are open to him. It is brought
to my notice that 3rd respondent has already retired
from service. If the petitioner wants to realise
compensation from respondents 3 and 4, on the basis of
the alleged incident, certainly he can approach any civil
court for the said purpose and after convincing the said
WPC NO.15132/04.
-:6:-
court, the relief can be sought. In the case of registering
criminal case also, he can approach the concerned
authority and if there is any failure on the part of the
police, he can approach the competent criminal court for
the said purpose. In the light of the facts and
circumstances involved in this case, no relief can be
granted in this writ petition as he has not made out any
case in support of the reliefs sought in this writ petition.
In the result, there is no merit in the writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE
kvm/-
WPC NO.15132/04.
-:7:-
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
O.P.No. 15132/2004
JUDGMENT
Dated:19th June,2009