The court emphasized that judicial review under Article 226 concerns the decision-making process, not the decision itself.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges the order of the 1^st respondent dismissing a complaint filed by him against respondents 3 to 8.

2. The complaint raised by the petitioner is against a brutal attack on his son Sri.Sanoj by respondents 3 to 8. According to the complainant on 25.10.2009, the police officers of Peroorkada Police Station took Sri.Sanoj into custody at a time when he was undergoing treatment for mental illness. Sri.Sanoj was taken into custody without informing his parents or friends and when he did not return home, his parents enquired around and soon realised that he was taken into custody. By the time Sri.Sanoj released on bail, he had been subjected to severe assault as evidenced by the wound certificate. Though the petitioner raised complaints before the higher police officials, it did elicit any response and hence the complaint was filed before the 1^st respondent.

3. Initially, by Ext.P3 order, the 1st respondent came to the conclusion that the police had manhandled petitioner's son and issued a direction to impose a warning on the respondents for using third degree methods against persons taken into custody by them. Dissatisfied by the order, petitioner preferred WP(C) No.41194 of

2017, before this Court. By judgment dated 06.06.2019, the order Ext.P3 impugned in that writ petition was set aside, and the 1^st respondent was directed to reconsider the complaint of the petitioner. Since the police officers against whom the allegations were raised in the complaint were not impleaded in the writ petition the 1^st respondent was directed to reconsider the matter after hearing the respondents in the complaint. By the impugned order, Ext.P5, the 1^st respondent dismissed the complaint after coming to the conclusion that there was no material to conclude that the complainant's son was assaulted by the delinquent officers. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 and 6 to 8 denying the allegations against them. It was also stated that the petitioner's son had not complained about any assault when he was produced before the doctor or before the learned Magistrate, and that the allegations now raised are all afterthoughts. It is also stated that the impugned order is well considered with sufficient reasons, and there is no cause for interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 2nd respondent and Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, the learned counsel for respondents 4,6 and 8. The 5th respondent is reported as dead and is stated as such in the writ petition itself, and hence, the writ petition can be disposed of in his absence.

6. The petitioner had raised a complaint of police brutality.

Six witnesses were examined on his behalf, however, the person who was allegedly assaulted was not at all examined. The 1^st respondent, while dismissing the complaint as per Ext.P5 had specifically noted that the allegations of the petitioner are based on information from his son and the same cannot be relied upon. It is also stated that when the petitioner's son was produced before the doctor as well as the learned Magistrate, he had not raised any complaint. Further, the 1^st respondent also came to the conclusion that the injuries noted in Ext.A1 wound certificate produced before the 1^st respondent did not tally with the evidence given by CW1. The 1st respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner's son was taken into custody only on 27.10.2009, while the wound certificate produced before the said authority was found to have been prepared only on 03.11.2009. After appreciating the nature of injuries mentioned in the wound certificate,