IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TH TUESDAY, THE 6 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 2994 OF 2024 PETITIONER: K.P. BEERAN AGED 54 YEARS S/O PAREETHUKUTTY, RESIDING AT KEEZHEDATHU HOUSE, KULAPPARACHAL .P.O., MURUKKUMTHOTTY, SANTHAPARA,IDUKKI., DISTRICT, PIN - 685619 BY ADV RAJIV NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT OF IDUKKI IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685619

3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER SANTHAMPARA POLICE STATION , SANTHAMPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685619 BY SMT RASMI THOMAS, GP.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the third respondent directing him not to summon the petitioner to the police station unnecessarily and without prior notice.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the first and second respondent to see that the third respondent is scrupulously following the standing order of state police chief.

2. The petitioner contends that despite having a clean history for over two decades, he is being persistently summoned by the third respondent. He acknowledges his past involvement in criminal activities and the convictions passed by the court. However, he asserts that he has since undergone significant personal reformation and asserts that there is no basis for him to continue being depicted as an individual prone to criminal behavior. To substantiate his contention, the petitioner refers to Exhibit P2 and Exhibit P4, which are information obtained under the RTI Act from the jurisdictional police authorities confirming his absence from criminal activities for the last 21 years. Furthermore, he relies on Exhibit P6, a response from the Public Information Officer at Santhanpara Police Station, which clarifies that the petitioner's name does not appear on either in the Known Depredator (KD) List or the Goonda List. He contends that the above documents underscore his transformation and his successful reintegration into society as a law-abiding citizen. He contends that the action of the 3rd respondent in summoning him is thoroughly unjustified and that portraying him as a person with criminal tendencies is both inaccurate and unfair.

3. In response, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is understood to be involved in Crimes in the years 1993, 1994, 1995, and 2007. She states that the petitioner was convicted in four cases and was acquitted in one. In 1999, he was listed as a Known Depradator. However, in 2006, he was included on the list of Dossier Criminals. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not known to have been involved in any crimes after 2006.

4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been convicted of only one crime, and he has preferred a revision petition challenging the finding of conviction, which is pending before this Court.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and have carefully gone through the records.

6. It is a matter of record and undisputed that the petitioner has maintained a clear and unblemished record for over two decades, demonstrating no involvement in criminal activities during this period. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that his past predisposition towards criminal behavior justifies ongoing police scrutiny lacks merit and constitutes harassment. Such continuous summoning by the police, absent any fresh information suggesting his involvement in criminal activities, infringes upon his right to live in peace and to have his prior criminal record consigned to oblivion. However, if the police are apprised of his involvement in