The Police Complaints Authority must properly investigate allegations of custodial torture against officers, including retirees, and cannot dismiss complaints without thorough examination of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

P.M. Manoj, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order (Ext.P3) issued by the District Police Complaints Authority, Alappuzha, in Complaint No. 54/2013.

2. The petitioner alleges that while he was employed in a private firm at Ernakulam and residing at Ezhupunna, two police constables arrived at his residence on September 5, 2013, and directed him to report to the Sub-Inspector of the Aroor Police Station. Accordingly, on September 7, 2013, the petitioner, accompanied by his mother and sisters, reported at the station. Upon arrival, the 3rd respondent called the petitioner into a room and physically assaulted him, slapped him on the left side of his face while reviling at him on the allegations that the petitioner had destroyed gold ornaments and treated his wife with cruelty. Subsequently, the petitioner was moved to another room where ten constables, including female officers, were present. He was further manhandled and eventually coerced into executing an agreement to transfer two cents of land to his wife.

3. The petitioner further contends that he was not informed of the sum and substance of the complaint allegedly lodged against him by his wife. He later learned that a false complaint had been filed, alleging misappropriation and misuse of money and gold ornaments given to her as gifts. On the basis of this complaint, the petitioner was beaten by the 4^th respondent and coerced into executing the aforementioned agreement. Furthermore, the physical torture resulted in a hearing deficiency and other complications in his left ear. In light of these circumstances, the petitioner approached senior police officials seeking action and registration of a crime against the erring officers. Subsequently, he preferred a complaint before the District Police Complaints Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the complaints authority”), Alappuzha, which was numbered as Complaint No. 54 of 2013.

4. Acting on this complaint, an inquiry was directed to be conducted by the District Police Chief through the DySP, Cherthala. However, it is alleged that a false report was submitted to the 1^st respondent with the intent of protecting subordinate officers. Although the 3^rd respondent entered an appearance and denied the allegations, and the petitioner produced evidence (marked as Ext.P2) during the proceedings, the 1^st respondent dismissed the complaint on untenable grounds without considering the actual facts of the case.

5. Consequently, this writ petition is preferred to set aside the said order and to direct a fresh consideration of the complaint on its merits in accordance with the law. The petitioner further seeks the registration of a criminal case against respondents 3 and 4 for custodial torture, as well as adequate compensation for the injuries and mental harassment sustained on 07.09.2013.

6. Although this petition has been pending before this Court since 2018, none of the contesting respondents has filed a counter- affidavit, despite having been served with notice. Consequently, it may be inferred that they have no submissions to make in rebuttal. However, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent submitted that the allegations of manhandling are directed solely against the 4^th respondent and not the 3^rd respondent, a fact which was also noted by the Complaints Authority in the impugned order. Furthermore, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner failed to produce any valid documentation or medical evidence to substantiate the claim that he sustained physical injuries.

7. I have heard Sri.Anilkumar M. Sivaraman for the petitioner, Smt.Mable C Kurian learned Government Pleader for 1^st respondent and Sri.Mohanlal for respondent No.3