SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Ker) 751

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANTONY DOMINIC, DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.
Sony A. – Appellant
Vs.
Superintendent of Police and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 10329 of 2017 (M)
Decided On : 06-07-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A. Rajasimhan and K. Nirmalan, Advs.
For the Respondents: P.A. Mohammed Shah, Sr. Government Pleader and P.P. Thajudeen, Adv.

The registration of FIR is mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offence, and uncontroverted allegations are deemed admitted in summary writ jurisdiction.

Headnote:

Police Brutality - Allegations against Police Officers - Ext. P3 Judgment - Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U P. - Naseem Bano v. State of U.P.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner Sony, Co-ordinator of West Coast Educational Trust, complained of police brutality and illegal confinement by two police officers. The University had issued Ext. P2 notification, stopping further admissions, leading to litigation. Ext. P3 judgment issued directions to the University, which it adhered to. Police detained Sony without registering a crime, despite adherence to Ext. P3 judgment.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the police officers' actions were uncontroverted, and their conduct threatened the rule of law. It directed the Director General of Police to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officers.

Issues: Allegations of police brutality and illegal confinement, adherence to Ext. P3 judgment, failure to register a crime by the police.

Ratio Decidendi: The registration of FIR is mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offence. Uncontroverted allegations are deemed admitted. Writ jurisdiction is summary and based on affidavits.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the Director General of Police was directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the police officers.

JUDGMENT :

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

1. The Controversy:

Petitioner Sony is the Co-ordinator of the West Coast Educational Trust, said to be a "collaborative institution" of the 5th respondent University. It imparts training in diploma programmes all over Kerala. Sony has approached this Court complaining of police brutality and also illegal confinement. He has arrayed two police officers in their personal capacity--eo nominee--as respondents 3 and 4. In the writ petition, especially in paragraph 7, he levelled grave allegations against those police officers:

"Yesterday, i.e. on 23-3-2017 at 12.30 noon the 4th respondent telephoned the petitioner and asked him and Director Anoop S. Krishnan to report in the police station. Anoop S. Krishnan is out of station and hence the petitioner went to the police station along [with] Advocate J. Renjith, Haripad and produced copy of Ext. P3 judgment. The same judgment was presented to the SI and CI several times during the last two months. But the 4th respondent illegally detained the petitioner in the police station from 2 pm to 5 pm. He used most filthy words against the petitioner and ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- directly to the students and to get reimbursed from the high court later. He shouted that the 'those in the high court don't know what he can do'. He made personal remarks against the Director Mr. Anoop S. Krishnan and his wife. He criminally intimidated the petitioner and threatened that the he will register false criminal case and will show what happened to the Chairman of Nehru College. At around 5 pm the 3rd respondent SI arrived and he started his part of harassment. When the judgment was shown to him by the petitioner's lawyer Mr. J. Renjith, the 3rd respondent sarcastically said that there is a mafia in the high court to get such judgments and he is well aware of the tricks in the high court. He then went on to make defamatory remarks against judiciary and lawyers making all others there to laugh with sarcasm. He then told the petitioner's lawyer that the trick of private complaint is unknown to those in the high court and threatened to teach everyone a lesson. The petitioner was ultimately released at 5.30 pm from illegal custody with an ultimatum to pay the compensation within two days. The 3rd respondent asked the students why can't they ransack the institution. Thus he abetted the commission of an offence and anything can happen to the petitioner's institution at anytime."

Submissions:

Petitioner's:

2. The learned counsel for Sony has submitted that initially Sony entered into the Ext. P1 MOU with the 5th respondent University and established the Centre, as the activity undertaken by the University was valid then. Later, based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Prof. Yashpal and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh AIR 2005 SC 2026, all the Universities offering distance education were directed to close their centres beyond their territorial jurisdiction, submits the learned counsel. Acting on the Supreme Court's directive, the UGC issued guidelines to all the Universities. The 5th respondent University, too, complied with those guidelines and issued Ext. P2 notification, stopping further admissions from 30.8.2014. In other words, it undertook to complete the courses of those students who had secured admission before that date.

3. The learned counsel has further submitted that Ext. P2 notification did not interdict the earlier admissions. So, initially, the University permitted examinations for those students admitted before 30.8.2014. And it has led to a lot of litigation.

4. Eventually, this Court through Ext. P3 judgment, according to the learned counsel, issued certain directions to the 5th respondent University. The University has adhered to them.

5. To conclude, the learned Counsel has submitted that both the police officials have abused and threatened Sony and illegally detained him in the police station till evening, without ever bothering even to regi

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top