IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24710 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- SHIBU.V, S/O. VASU, KALMOKE HOUSE, AYILOOR.P.O, NENMARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NENMARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. 2. I.N.T.U.C NENMARA UNIT, REP. BY ITS X PRESIDENT, NENMARA, PALAKKAD. 3. C.I.T.U, NENMARA UNIT, REP. BY ITS SECRERTARY, NENMARA, PALAKKAD. ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD (SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.11.08) BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 & R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.24710/08 PETITIONER'S EXT: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 7.8.08 ADDRESSED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.24710 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is an agriculturist, who owns 8 acres of land. He submits as follows: He has got six permanent workers to do the various agricultural operations and also to do the incidental work of loading/unloading. The scheme under the Kerala Head Load Workers Act is not notified in the petitioner's area. So, he is entitled to do the incidental work of loading/unloading, using his own workmen. While so, the members of respondents 2 and 3 came forward claiming loading/unloading work in his farm. On 6.8.2008, they trespassed into the petitioner's premises and obstructed the agricultural operations there. The aggrieved petitioner preferred Exhibit P1 representation before the Sub Inspector of Police, Nenmara, seeking police protection. He also produced the photocopy of the receipt issued from the Police Station as Exhibit P1(2). Alleging that the police did not take any effective action to remove the obstruction and to render W.P.(C)No.24710/08 -2- protection to him and his workmen, this Writ Petition was filed. 2. The first respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, has filed an affidavit before this Court stating that Exhibit P1 representation was not filed before the Police Station by the petitioner. The photocopy of the receipt produced by the writ petitioner was not issued from his Office. In fact the receipt No. PTN/340/K-1/08 was issued to one Smt.Usha, W/o Mohanan on 16.8.2008 for a petition filed by her alleging that her husband is missing. No receipt with the above said number and date was issued to the petitioner from the Police Station on 7.8.2008. It was also stated that receipt Nos.455499 and 455500 were found missing from the book and an enquiry was being conducted in the matter. 3. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations in the affidavit of the first respondent-Sub Inspector of Police. He further stated that he submitted the complaint on 7.8.2008. He waited in the Police Station to get the receipt. But, no receipt was issued, as the Station House Officer was not available at that time. He went to the Station on 8.8.2008 to get W.P.(C)No.24710/08 -3- the receipt. But, no receipt was issued. Mr.Rajagopalan a Police Constable, on 9.8.2008 issued the receipt produced by the petitioner. According to him, he has no role in the irregularity, if any, in the issuance of the receipt. 4. Later, the learned Government Pleader filed a memo producing the report of the inquiry held by the Superintendent of Police, Palakkad as per the direction of this Court. In the said report, it is stated as follows: “ The enquiry conducted in the matter revealed that Sri Shibu the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.24710/2008 managed to get the petition receipt from Nemmara Police Station through GHC 3434 Rajagopalan. Shibu and Rajagopalan conspired each other and taken the petition receipt from Nemmara Police Station without the knowledge of others. He made false entries in the receipt and handed over to Sri Shibu for undue pecuniary benefits. Sri Shibu know that the receipt was a forged one and he submitted the same before the Hon'ble High Court with a view to get police protection. W.P.(C)No.24710/08 -4- On examination of copy of Exhibit P1(2) it is learned that the same was lacking with seal of SI as well as Police Station. The receipt (is) bearing a Printed Serial No. of 455500. Witness No.1 SI stated that the same was found missing from the original receipt book. Moreover the receipts contain a Petition No. of PTN/340/K-1/08. The enquiry officer verified the petition register as well as the petition receipt counter foil. He noticed that the receipt No.340/08 was issued to Smt.Usha and seen corresponding entries were made in the petition register. Copy of the petition receipt No.340/08 marked as Ext. (A). Copy of the petition register is marked as Ext.(B). The enquiry officer verified copy of the Pray (sic- writ petition) of the petitioner which was submitted by the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court. In that petition the petitioner alleged that he had submitted a petition before the Hon'ble High Court (sic-Sub Inspector of Police) on 07/08/2008 and the 1st respondent had not taken any action in this regard. Enquiry revealed that W.P.(C)No.24710/08 -5- no such petition was given by the petitioner before SI of Police, Nemmara. As per the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, SI of Police, Nemmara had submitted that (the) statement of fact before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. In the statement of facts SI submitted that he denied the allegations of the petitioner. Copy of the statement of facts submitted by the SI of Nemmara is marked as Ext.(C). In this connection SI had conducted a detailed enquiry into the matter and submitted a special report against the GHC 3434 Rajagopalan through proper channel to Supdt. of Police, Palakkad for initiating disciplinary action against him for the grave misconduct. The special report of SI, Nemmara is marked as Ext.(D). On receipt of the special report, the Supdt. of Police, Palakkad suspended the GHC 3434 Rajagopalan from service and detailed an Oral Enquiry against him vide Order No.S2/48979/08 P dated 24.11.2008 of W.P.(C)No.24710/08 -6- Supdt. of Police, Palakkad. Copy of the order of Supdt.of Police marked as Ext.(E). The enquiry into the matter disclosed that Sri Shibu the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.24710/08 colluded with GHC 3434 Rajagopalan had managed to get a false petition receipt of Nemmara Police Station. Sri Rajagopalan had issued the false petition receipt to Sri Shibu for undue pecuniary benefit. All the witnesses and documents were supporting the allegation. Sri Shibu has the knowledge that the receipt submitted before the court is a false one.” The above report would show that the Head Constable and the writ petitioner conspired and created a forged document using a stolen receipt and the same has been produced as a genuine document before this Court. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the Head Constable Rajagopalan has been placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings initiated against him are being proceeded with by the competent authority. 5. The petitioner has filed an additional reply affidavit W.P.(C)No.24710/08 -7- dealing with the report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Palakkad. He asserts, he has nothing to do with the issuance of the receipt. Mr.Rajagopalan who was already transferred from the Station was allowed to continue in the Station and to function in uniform and the said Constable issued the receipt to him. The petitioner has no role whatsoever in the irregularity committed by Mr.Rajagopalan. 6. From the materials on record, it is clear that Exhibit P1 (2) receipt is a forged document produced before this Court as genuine with the intention to get favourable orders from this Court. The prayer in this Writ Petition is for a mandamus to the police to grant necessary protection to the petitioner's workmen to do the loading/unloading work in his agricultural farm. So, the demand before the police and their refusal to render protection is normally a condition precedent for moving this Court for police protection. Normally, a Head Constable has no interest in forging such a document, unless he is persuaded by the petitioner W.P.(C)No.24710/08 -8- or else he must be an insane person. The view expressed by the District Superintendent of Police that the Head Constable has forged the document for the benefit of the petitioner for pecuniary benefits received, appears to be a reasonable view on the facts. Unless the petitioner has influenced the Head Constable and greased his palm, there is no reason for him, who was already transferred from the Station, to steal the receipt form and forge the receipt in it so that the petitioner can produce it before this Court. In view of the above facts, we are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition and consider the matter on merits. It deserves to be dismissed and we do so with costs, which is fixed as Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). The petitioner shall pay the cost to the State. Normally, this Court should further pass an order under section 340 Cr.P.C. to prosecute the petitioner for perjury. But, we feel that the award of costs will be sufficient in this case and we are not making any further order in this matter. It is also clarified that the observations made by us in this Writ Petition will not affect the contentions of the Head Constable Mr.Rajagopalan before the disciplinary authority. The said authority will be free to arrive at its W.P.(C)No.24710/08 -9- own findings based on the materials produced before it. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn