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 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30772 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- STALIN, AGED 33,S/O.C.A.BABU, CHAMPAKKAL HOUSE, S.N ROAD, PERUMPADAPPU, KOCHI-6. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,KOCHI. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MATTANCHERY. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLURUTHY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:0 K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30772 OF 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging harassment from the part of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mattancherry and the Circle Inspector of Police, Palluruthy. He was arrested under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 and detained as per the order of the District Collector dated 11.6.2007. His mother challenged that detention order by filing W.P.(Crl) No.131/2008. The said petition was allowed by Ext.P1 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. His detention was held to be bad for the reason that the Government passed the order approving the detention order of the Collector after the time limit of 63 days provided under the Act. It was also found that the detention beyond three months without referring the case to the Advisory Board was also bad. After his release from detention, the petitioner submits, the police officers are threatening to book him again W.P.(C) No.30772/2008 2 under the above said Act by registering fresh crimes against him. The petitioner submits, the 3rd respondent is setting up complainants to file false complaints against the petitioner, so that, further crimes can be registered against him. The said officer caused to file a complaint against the petitioner by one lady Indira. But, the Sub Inspector of police, Palluruthy, after investigation, refused to register any crime based on that complaint. Nevertheless, the police are conducting surveillance on the petitioner. Police men are sent every night to the house of the petitioner to keep a watch over him. Such acts of the police are infringing his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is submitted. In the above factual background, this writ petition is filed, seeking directions against the respondents 3 and 4 restraining them from making domiciliary visits by way of surveillance, where the petitioner is residing. 2. The 3rd respondent has filed a statement in which it is submitted that the petitioner was involved in eight criminal cases for various offences including dacoity, robbery, attempt to W.P.(C) No.30772/2008 3 murder, rioting, hurt etc. They are the following: “1. Kochi Cusba Cr.130/98 U/s. 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w. 149 IPC. 2. Koci Cusba Cr.24/05 U/s 341,323 r/w 34 IPC. 3. Kochi Cusba Cr.31/05 U/s. 143, 147, 148, 141,323, 395 r/w. 149 IPC. 4. Kochi Cusba Cr.35/05 U/s. 143, 147, 148, 324, 308 r/w. 149 IPC. 5. Kochi Cusba Cr.357/06 U/s. 397,120(b) IPC. 6. Kochi Cusba Cr.111/07 U/s. 107 Cr.P.C (Bond executed). 7. Kochi Cusba Cr.153/07 U/s. 143, 147, 341,324 r/w. 149 IPC.” After his release from Jail he is indulging in the very same criminal activities and a crime has been registered against him by Kochi Cusba Police station, as Crime No.1018/2008 under section 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 427 read with 149 IPC. His father Babu alias “Appi Babu” and his brother Lenin are persons in the 'Rowdy' list maintained by the police station. His claim that after his release from jail, he was not involved in any criminal case is not correct. He along with 5 others attacked one Mrudhul, S/o.Mohanan, Vezhakkattu House, S.N.Road, Perumpadappu on 12.19.2008. In that incident, the victim Mrudhul sustained injuries and lost a gold chain worth W.P.(C) No.30772/2008 4 Rs.14,000/-. The Mrudhul was once a member of the petitioner's criminal gang. The allegation that the said respondent has arranged to file false complaints against the petitioner is denied. It is also submitted that police men are not deputed to conduct surveillance on the petitioner as alleged by him. Perumpadappu is a crime prone area and so, police have intensified patrolling in that area in good faith with the intention to maintain peace and order in that locality. No police man has been specifically deputed to monitor the activities of the petitioner, it is submitted. The police have no intention, whatsoever, to falsely implicate him in any crime. It is submitted that this writ petition is filed to prevent the police from taking action against the petitioner, in accordance with law. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the averments in the counter affidavit and reiterating his contentions in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, out of eight cases referred by the Assistant Commissioner, four have already ended in his acquittal. Crime No. 1018/2008 has been falsely registered against the petitioner, it is submitted. W.P.(C) No.30772/2008 5 4. We heard the learned senior counsel Sri.K.Ramkumar for the petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader, Sri.Benjamin Paul for the respondents. The petitioner is a ”Known Rowdy” as per the definition of the same under The Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. We notice that the detention order against him under the Act has been quashed by this Court on technical grounds. The police submit, even after his release from the jail, he is continuing with his criminal activities. That is evident from the registration of Crime No.1018/2008, it is submitted. They also denies the allegations of domiciliary visits or surveillance on the movements of the petitioner. They also pointed out that Perumpadappu being a crime prone area, police patrolling is intensified there. In this writ petition, this Court cannot decide whether the allegations based on which Crime No.1018/2008 has been registered against the petitioner is correct or not. The police should be conceded every freedom to take all steps according to law to maintain peace in the area. For that, if patrolling is intensified, police are only discharging their duty. The same cannot be described as a W.P.(C) No.30772/2008 6 harassment of the petitioner. Even on the admission of the petitioner he is an accused in 3 criminal cases. He has also executed bond under Section 109 of the Cr.P.C. So, having regard to the facts of the case, we are not inclined to hold that the police are harassing the petitioner. Therefore, relying on the allegations of the petitioner, this Court cannot interfere with the operational freedom of the police in taking steps to prevent commission of crime and for maintaining peace. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps