IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15132 of 2004(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.K. JOY, VALIYAPULINCHAKAL, NEAR MANGALAM COLLEGE, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV.MR.JOMY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNMENT CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUGATHAN, HEAD CONSTABLE, WORING AT POLICE CONTROL ROOM, KOTTAYAM RESIDING AT THOPPIL VEEDU, KUMARANALOOR, KOTTAYAM. 4. GEORGE, FORMER SUB INSPECTOR OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION, NOW WORKING AT CONTROL ROOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. - R1 , R2 BY ADV.MR.K.G.ANIL BABU FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.15132/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE TREATMENT CARD ISSUED FROM MEDICAL COLLEGE KOTTAYAM DT. 26.4.03. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH PEOPLES MOVEMENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOTTAYAM DT. 30.4.03. P3:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KOTTAYAM DT. 30.4.03. P4:- COPY OF THE PETITIONER FILED A COMPLAINT BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER THROUGH PEOPLES MOVEMENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION DT. 30.4.03. P5:- COPY OF THE ENQUIRTY REPORT FILED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ETTUMANOOR DT. 23.5.03. P6:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA DT. 2.6.03. P7:- COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT FILED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DT. 13.10.03. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE UPA LOK AYUKTA DT. 4.2.04. P9:- COPY OF THE AUDIOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT ISSUED FROM SRAVANA SPEECH HEARING CENTRE KOTTAYAM DT. 18.11.03. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.96/03 ALONG WITH THE F.I.STATEMENT DT. 8.3.03. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C. No.15132 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated, 19th June, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Ist respondent State of Kerala to give an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner for the torture and atrocities to which he was subjected at Ettumanoor police station by respondents 3 and 4. It is also prayed for a direction to the 2nd respondent to register a crime against respondents 3 and 4 and also sought for taking departmental action against the above respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 26.4.2003, at about 12 noon, a phone message was received by the petitioner's mother from the 3rd respondent directing her to send the petitioner to the police station in order to verify whether one Binoy Thomas, a former worker of the petitioner, had got burn injuries on his hand while WPC NO.15132/04. -:2:- he was working with the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in pursuance of such telephone message, he along with the local Panchayat Member, his father and driver went to the police station where he was brutally manhandled and put him in the lockup room without any dress. The petitioner was not released from the police station till his advocate interfered along with the petitioner's father. It is also averred that he was admitted in the Medical College hopital, Kottayam and had undergone treatment. In support of the above prayer, the petitioner very much relied upon the order of the Kerala Lok Ayuktha, i.e Ext.P8 order. In Ext.P8 order Lok Ayuktha found that the allegation of the petitioner is correct and, accordingly, it was suggested that the case against the Sub Inspector, P.J.George may be got transferred to Crime Branch. It is also directed that enquiry may be got ordered by the Director General of police against the 3rd respondent Head Constable. By the said order, the Lok Ayuktha has also suggested that the WPC NO.15132/04. -:3:- petitioner can claim compensation from the 3rd respondent Head Constable from any other court. It is on the basis of the above observations and suggestions, the petitioner approached this Court with the above prayer. 3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent. In the counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent has controverted all the factual averments taken by the petitioner in this writ petition and he set out an entirely new version regarding the alleged incident. It is specifically pleaded in the counter affidavit that the 3rd respondent was not aware about the report alleged to have been made by the Superintendent of police stated in Ext.P7 before the Lok Ayuktha. It is also the case of the 3rd respondent that without giving any opportunity to the 3rd respondent, the Lok Ayuktha simply accepted Ext.P7 report and based upon the said report, Ext.P8 order was passed. Therefore, according to the 3rd respondent, the order of Lok Ayuktha and its observation and finding in Ext.P8 is incorrect and baseless and the same cannot be WPC NO.15132/04. -:4:- acted upon because of its arbitrariness and illegality. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 5. Going by the facts involved in the matter, it can be seen that the facts are not beyond dispute and regarding the incident, divergent versions are given by the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that when the Superintendent of Police in his report, Ext.P7, reported in favour of the petitioner, the C.I. of police Ettumanoor who after conducting the investigation as directed by the Superintendent of police, Kottayam, made report as evidenced by Ext.P5 in which it is reported that the petitioner herein created false complaint because of his enmity towards the 3rd respondent since the 3rd respondent detected the crime against the petitioner. Thus from the petitioners on documents, namely, Exts.P5 and P7, it can be seen that there is a serious dispute regarding the entire facts involved in the case. It is also pertinent to WPC NO.15132/04. -:5:- note that when Ext.P8 order was passed, admittedly, 3rd respondent was not heard and he was not giving an opportunity to cross examine either the Superintendent of Police who prepared Ext.P7 or the witnesses he questioned and also the 3rd respondent has no opportunity to peruse the records which relied on by the Superintendent of police for preparing Ext.P7 report. Under such a situation, it is unwarranted for this Court to become a party to this dispute. 6. It is also relevant to note that instead of invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India , if the petitioner wants to agitate the issue and to seek relief, he can effectively resort to the other remedies which are open to him. It is brought to my notice that 3rd respondent has already retired from service. If the petitioner wants to realise compensation from respondents 3 and 4, on the basis of the alleged incident, certainly he can approach any civil court for the said purpose and after convincing the said WPC NO.15132/04. -:6:- court, the relief can be sought. In the case of registering criminal case also, he can approach the concerned authority and if there is any failure on the part of the police, he can approach the competent criminal court for the said purpose. In the light of the facts and circumstances involved in this case, no relief can be granted in this writ petition as he has not made out any case in support of the reliefs sought in this writ petition. In the result, there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- WPC NO.15132/04. -:7:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. 15132/2004 JUDGMENT Dated:19th June,2009