IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1031 of 2004(S) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------- JAYAPRAKASH, S/O. KUTTAN PILLAI, AGED 30 YEARS, VAZHETHU VEEDU, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.S.SANTHOSH, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED NOT KNOWN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THOMAS, S/O.NOT KNOWN, AGED NOT KNOWN, POLICE CONSTABLE NO.Q.4540,KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. 3. PUSHPA LAL, S/O.NOT KNOWN,AGED NOT KNOWN P.C.NO.Q.3763, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. 4. SURESH KUMAR, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED NOT KNOWN, P.C.NO.Q.4952, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. (P.C.NO. IS CORRECTED AS P.C.Q.5040 AS PER ORDER IN I.A.760/08 DT. 12.12.2008). ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN FOR R1 SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- Con.Case (C) No.1031 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 16th June, 2009. J U D G M E N T S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. This contempt petition is filed alleging that the respondents/Police Officers arrested the petitioner on 22.6.2004, took him to the Kottiyam Police Station and committed custodial torture on him by hitting him with stick and inflicted blows with fist and hand. In this regard, the counsel for the petitioner relies upon the findings and guidelines issued by the Apex Court in respect of the custodial behaviour of the Police in the case of D.K.Basu v. State of W.B.[(1997) 1 SCC 416]. 2. At the outset, we have to make it clear that merely because there is allegation of custodial torture, that by itself will not give jurisdiction to this court to invoke contempt proceedings, unless prima facie there is some supporting material. On a perusal of the contentions of the petitioner in the contempt petition and the reply filed by the respondents, prima facie we do not find any material to indicate that the petitioner was either COC NO.1031/04 2 arrested or kept in custody on 22.6.2004. No doubt, the medical certificate dated 22.6.2004 has been produced, which indicates simple abdominal pain above umbilicus and back of middle of trunk. That does not indicate that this was due to either assault by a stick or fist or hands. In the absence of materials contempt jurisdiction of this court in such cases cannot be invoked. 3. As observed by the Apex Court in D.K.Basu's Case (supra), mere calling to the police station for interrogation by itself is not violative of any fundamental right. It is only if there is some material that third degree methods are used on the accused, this court can take note of it, even while exercising contempt jurisdiction. Normally in cases of such alleged tortures in police custody, the petitioner is free to approach the concerned higher officials or the Magistrate complaining the same and only on the basis of finding if any given or available, this court can invoke contempt jurisdiction as indicated in D.K.Basu's case (supra). Since we do not find any such material, this is not a fit case to invoke our contempt jurisdiction. The Contempt of Court COC NO.1031/04 3 Case is hence dismissed. However, we make it clear that this judgment will not come in the way of the petitioner taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. C.M.Appln.74/09 : Allowed. S.R.BANNURMATH, Chief Justice. KURIAN JOSEPH, Judge. tgs S.R.BANNURMATH, C. J. & KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- Con.Case (Civil) No.1031 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 16th June, 2009.