IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 30126 of 2000(J) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. PRAVEEN G.KRISHNAN, DEVI NIVAS, PULIYANNOOR, PALAI. 2. GOPALAKRISHNAN T.M., DEVI NIVAS, PULIYANNOOR, PALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALA POLICE STATION, PALA . 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAI POLICE STATION, PALAI. 4. JAYAKRISHNAN, CONSTABLE, PALA POLICE STATION, PALA. 5. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.RAMANI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAEM DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.31026/2000 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE TALUK HEAD QUARTER HOSPITAL PALA, DT. 21.10.2000. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 19.10.2000. E.XT.P3:- COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT APPEARDIN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DT. 20.10.2000. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAM DAILY DT. 20.10.2000. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT APPEARD IN MANGALAM DAILY DT. 21.10.2000. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT APPEARD IN JANMABHOOMI DAILY DT. 21.10.2000. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY TALUK COMMITTEE OF THE VISWAKARMA AIKYAVEDI. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE PALA MUNICIPALITY TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DT. 27.5.99. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE REPORT APPEARD IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT. 17.5.2000. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE REPORT APPEARED IN KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DT, 17.5.2000. EXT.P11:- COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED B Y S.I. OF POLICE TO THE PETITIONER DT. 28.11.2000. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= OP.No.30126 of 2000-J. ========================= Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners have approached this Court mainly for a direction to the first respondent to conduct an enquiry on Ext.P1 complaint filed by the first petitioner. The first petitioner was involved in an incident which occurred on 19.10.2000 while he was returning his home in his motor cycle. It is submitted in the original petition that the 4th respondent, a police constable in the Pala Police Station, cought hold of the 1st petitioner and restrained him and later he was taken to the police station. It is stated that the driving licence of the 1st petitioner was forcefully taken and he was severely manhandled. It is also stated that a crime was registered by the Pala Police Station but investigation was not being conducted. 2. In the statement filed by respondents 2 and 3 it is submitted that the first petitioner, disregarding the directions by OP.No.30126 of 2000-J. -: 2 :- one police constable, who noted that the petitioner had been driving the motor cycle above the normal speed, proceeded in a high-speed and he was stopped by another police constable in front of the private bus stand, Pala. In spite of search of his identity by the police constable he did not reveal it and it is under these circumstances he was taken to the police station. Allegations raised by the first petitioner that he was manhandled and that his driving licence was forcefully taken have been denied. It is also stated that an M.V. pety case under section 132 read with 197 of the Motor Vehicles Act was charged against the first petitioner as case No.826/2000. It is also submitted that on 15.5.2000 the then Sub Inspector of Police, Pala checked the records of the vehicle of the first petitioner found that he is not having the lawful driving licence to ride a motor cycle and hence he was charged in case No.507/2000, it was ST.No.2537/2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala. It is pointed out that the 1st petitioner and his father pleaded guilty and they have been imposed fine by the learned Magistrate. OP.No.30126 of 2000-J. -: 3 :- 3. In the light of the facts explained in the statement, I find that the request of the petitioners to conduct an investigation into the incidents alleged by the first petitioner is not justified. The Original Petition is therefore dismissed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-