Acts of police officers involving personal misconduct or assault are not performed in pursuance of official duty and therefore do not attract the limitation or immunity protections under the Kerala Police Act, 1960.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

Defendants 1 to 3 in a suit for damages, have come up with the present appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate court in reversing the dismissal of the suit by the Addl. Sub Court-II, Kozhikode.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

On 17.02.2010 near Tagore Centenary Hall, Kozhikode, the first plaintiff was stopped by the driver working under the first defendant. The attempt was to collect fine for traffic offences. The aforesaid act was questioned by the first plaintiff. The matter was not precipitated there. On 26.02.2010, third defendant and another Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police came to the residence of the first plaintiff and at that time he was not available in the house. The police officials informed the third plaintiff (mother) that they want the first plaintiff and his vehicle at the police station immediately. On enquiry, the first plaintiff came to know that on 21.02.2010, the first defendant registered an FIR against the first plaintiff for alleged offence punishable under Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code based on a complaint by the Civil Police Officer, Suresh Babu. The first plaintiff approached the Commissioner of Police and higher officers and informed them about the misuse of power by the first defendant. Later the first defendant submitted a final report in the aforesaid crime and the court had taken cognizance of the final report and the case was numbered as CC No.491/2010 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IV, Kozhikode. Later the prosecution withdrew the case. On 02.03.2010 at 12.45 p.m., a team of police officials from the Nadakkavu Police Station under the leadership of defendants 1 to 3 came to the first plaintiff's residence and enquired about the first plaintiff. On the same day evening at 07.00 p.m. the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 with a police force, including women police constables and a mobile crane, came to the residence of the plaintiffs and seized a car bearing registration No.KL-16/9 to the police station. When the first defendant demanded the key of the car, the second plaintiff demanded a receipt. The first defendant was outraged by the request of the second plaintiff demanding receipt, and he manhandled and assaulted the second plaintiff. Defendants 2 and 3 caught hold of the second plaintiff enabling the first defendant to assault and abuse him. On witnessing this incident, the third plaintiff fainted and fell down and thereafter, the second plaintiff was not even permitted to take her to the hospital, but was permitted only after the keys of the car were handed over to the first defendant. The plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 were hospitalized and later the first plaintiff approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IV, Kozhikode with CMP No.1495/2010 under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the vehicle from the interim custody. The petition was allowed, but the first defendant refused to release the vehicle. Later CMP No.1676/2010 was filed for production of vehicle before the court and on 25.03.2010, the first plaintiff went to the police station for release of the vehicle, but the same was not done and later, it was released through