IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
B.Vinod - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) No. 5204 of 2014
Decided on : 11-03-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 332, 427, 320, 323, 324, 325, 403, r/w 34 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 188 (3) (1) and 181 - Kerala Police Act, 2011 - Section 110 (1) (i) & (ii), 113 - Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Rash driving or riding on a public way - Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees - Dishonest misappropriation of property - Police Complaints Authority - Petitioners are police officials who are respondents 1 to 4 in O.P before State Police Complaints Authority - Averment in Exhibit P1 complaint before Authority is that 4th respondent herein was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration along with his friend without wearing a helmet and when he reached near police check post where 2nd petitioner along with police party was checking vehicles, one policeman asked him to stop bike all of a sudden and that 3rd petitioner caught hold on handle of bike which resulted in bike getting accelerated and thereby hit 3rd petitioner and he along with 4th respondent fell down.
Finding of the Court:
It is contended that direction issued by Authority as per Exhibit P6 order to register a case against petitioners even alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 403 IPC based on allegation of 4th respondent that mobile phone was taken into custody by 2nd petitioner and it is not returned back so far and same amounts to dishonest misappropriation of property, is on a wrong appreciation of facts - It is case of petitioners that mobile phone in question was produced before JFCM-II, in Crime along with property list, and said aspect was not properly considered by Authority while issuing a direction to register a case against petitioners as per Exhibit P6 order - It is also contention of petitioners that disciplinary proceedings were initiated in connection with above allegation and that they have been exonerated of charges leveled against them - It is also contended that Exhibit P8 medical certificate and O.P records will clearly prove lack of bonafide in filing Exhibit P1 complaint and same was not properly considered by Authority - After considering rival contentions of both sides and on a perusal of Exhibit P6 order, court feel that these contentions were not considered or dealt with by Authority while issuing Exhibit P6 order - Therefore, in facts and circumstances of this case, Court of view that State Police Complaints Authority should reconsider matter afresh after taking into consideration various contentions of petitioners as enumerated above.
Result: Writ petition disposed of
JUDGMENT :
The above writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P6 order dated 30.01.2014 by the State Police Complaints Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the Authority”) on a complaint filed by the 4th respondent against the petitioners herein alleging assault and registration of a false case against him.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are as follows: Petitioners are police officials who are respondents 1 to 4 in O.P No. 97 of 2013 before the State Police Complaints Authority. The averment in Exhibit P1 complaint before the Authority is that on 17.02.2013 the 4th respondent herein was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL 01 V 5686 along with his friend without wearing a helmet and when he reached near the police check post where the 2nd petitioner along with police party was checking the vehicles, one policeman asked him to stop the bike all of a sudden and that the 3rd petitioner caught hold on the handle of the bike which resulted in the bike getting accelerated and thereby hit the 3rd petitioner and he along with the 4th respondent fell down. Thereupon, petitioners assaulted the 4th respondent and his friend. Thereafter, a crime was registered against the 4th respondent and his friend as Crime No. 172 of 2013 of Kazhakootam Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 332, 427 and 34 IPC r/w Section 188 (3) (1) and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Later Exhibit P11 final report was filed in the said crime before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Attingal. It is the case of the petitioners that Exhibit P1 complaint before the State Police Complaints Authority is a false one and it is only an attempt of the 4th respondent to wriggle out from the criminal prosecution. Detailed written statements were filed by the petitioners before the Authority as Exhibit P2 to P5. It is contended that the Authority without considering the contentions raised by the petitioners and without appreciating the evidence adduced in its correct perspective, held as per Exhibit P6 order dated 30.01.2014 that the 4th respondent suffered bodily harm at the hands of the petitioners and that his mobile was misappropriated and therefore directed to register a criminal case against the petitioners under Sections 323, 324, 325, 403, r/w 34 IPC. It was further ordered that Crime No. 172 of 2013 wherein the 4th respondent is arrayed as an accused has to be reinvestigated by the CBCID. It is aggrieved by Exhibit P6 order of the Authority that the present writ petition is filed. Even though this writ petition was filed as early as 2014, no counter affidavit is seen filed by any of the respondents.
3. Heard Shri. Suman Chakravarthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Shiny Mol, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also Shri. Shajin. S. Hameed, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri. Suman Chakravarthy raised the following contentions: The Authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain Exhibit P1 complaint in view of Section 110 (1) (i) & (ii) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, and therefore Exhibit P6 is issued without jurisdiction. The petitioners are entitled to protection under Section 113 of the Kerala Police Act. The Authority has no power to order reinvestigation of a case that is now pending before a competent court. The power conferred on the Police Complaint Authority is only to recommend departmental inquiry and registration of a criminal case. A departmental inquiry has already been initiated and has culminated in the exoneration of the charges leveled against the petitioners. The 4th respondent has already filed Exhibit P12 complaint against the petitioners as C.M.P. No.970 of 2013 and that the said case is now pending as C.C. No. 291 of 2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Attingal and therefore there is no scope for registration of a furthe
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.