Nassar M.I. and Thajunnisa and M P Ibrahim v. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kunathunadu Police Station; Circle Inspector of Police, Kunathunadu Police Station; Mallika Radhakrishnan; Jyothi Lakshmi R

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **W.P.(C) No.1963 OF 2021(U)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**NASSAR M.I.**| |---|---| ||**AGED 41 YEARS**| ||**MATTAPPILLI,**| ||**MOOLAYIL HOUSE,**| ||**PUTHENCRUZ P O,**| ||**PIN-682308.**| |**2**|**THAJUNNISA**| ||**AGED 35 YEARS**| ||**W/O M I NASSAR,**| ||**MATTAPPILLI,**| ||**MOOLAYIL HOUSE,**| ||**PUTHENCRUZ P O,**| ||**PIN-682308.**| |**3**|**M P IBRAHIM**| ||**AGED 70 YEARS**| ||**S/O PAREED,**| ||**MATTAPPILLI,**| ||**MOOLAYIL HOUSE,**| ||**PUTHENCRUZ P O,**| ||**PIN-682308.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM**| ||**SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (KANNAMPUZHA)**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE**| |---|---| ||**KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION,**| ||**KUNNATHUNADU, PIN-683562.**| |**2**|**CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE**| ||**KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION,**| ||**KUNNATHUNADU, PIN-683562.**| |**3**|**MALLIKA RADHAKRISHNAN**| ||**AGED 58 YEARS**| ||**W/O RADHAKRISHNAN EMBRANTHIRI,**| ||**PUTHENMADATHIL, SRUTHI BHAVAN,**| W.P.(C) No.1963 OF 2021(U) 2 **CHALAKKATTUKUDU ROAD, KANJIRAKKOTTAM, PATTIMATTOM P O, PIN-683562.** **4 JYOTHI LAKSHMI R AGED 29 YEARS D/O RADHAKRISHNAN EMBRANTHIRI, PUTHENMADATHIL, SRUTHI BHAVAN, CHALAKKATTUKUDU ROAD, KANJIRAKKOTTAM, PATTIMATTOM P O, PIN-683562.** **R1-2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.1963 OF 2021(U) 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2, not to harass the petitioners by summoning them to the Police Station or otherwise, at the instance of the respondents 3 and 4. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2, not to demand payment of any money or delivery of property to respondents 3 and 4. In the writ petition, it is alleged that on 21.01.2021 respondents 1 and 2 demanded the 1[st] petitioner to be present in Kunnathunadu Police Station at 11.00 a.m. on 22.01.2021. When he appeared before respondents 1 and 2, the 2[nd] respondent informed him that respondents 3 and 4 have filed complaint against the petitioners. The 2[nd] respondent threated the 1[st] petitioner that if the petitioners do not pay the value of 3.285 cents of land to respondents 3 and 4 before 25.01.2021, the petitioners will be looped in criminal case, arrested and detained in custody. With the above allegations, the petitioners have filed this writ petition before this Court on 25.01.2021, seeking the aforesaid relief. 2. On 25.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for W.P.(C) No.1963 OF 2021(U) 4 admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 3 and 4, returnable by 27.01.2021. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. 3. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed counter affidavit, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. 4. The petitioners have filed reply affidavit. 5. The 2[nd] respondent has filed a statement, wherein it is stated that based on a complaint made by the 4[th] respondent, both parties were summoned to the Police Station. No criminal case is registered in the matter. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. 7. In **Aslam S. and another v. State of Kerala and others [2011 (2) KHC 384]** a Division Bench of this Court, in a writ petition seeking reliefs alleging police harassment, held that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be invoked by parties and exercised by the Court only in exceptional circumstances of grave W.P.(C) No.1963 OF 2021(U) 5 and imminent danger to the person applying for such relief, provided, such a situation is shown and demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Writ Court and it is shown that the alternate remedies under the Kerala Police Act, 1960 are resorted to, but remains ineffective or has turned futile. Such orders cannot be sought for in a routine manner. 8. In **Aslam S.** , the Division Bench held further that, even apart from the provisions contained in Section 17E of the Kerala Police Act, 1960 the law is fairly well settled that every police officer is duty bound to ensure that he shall act in strict conformity with the laws. Firstly, he is a public servant. More importantly, he is one who belongs to a uniformed force. The conditions of service of such an establishment oblige the personnel to act only within the frame work of the Constitution and the laws. In an establishment with a hierarchy of officers in administration, every superior officer is duty bound to ensure that the subordinate does not breach the law and acts only in strict conformity with the laws. This has to be so, even by the terms of the Police Act. Therefore, it is all the more the duty of every superior officer in the police establishment to attend to any complaint of citizens of any harassment or other unlawful act by any member of the police W.P.(C) No.1963 OF 2021(U) 6 force subordinate to such officer. In this view of the matter also, the citizens have abundant avenues to bring complaints before the superior officers in the police establishment. 9. The Kerala Police Act, 2011 contains provisions similar to that dealt with by the Division Bench in **Aslam S** . Section 110 of the said Act deals with the Police Complaints Authority. 10. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submission made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that there are certain disputes between the 1[st] petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 in connection with a land deal. According to the petitioners, at the instance of respondents 3 and 4, the 2[nd] respondent Circle Inspector of Police, Kunnathunadu Police Station is harassing the 1[st] petitioner and threatening him with dare consequences. The specific stand taken in the statement filed by the 2[nd] respondent is that, based on the complaint made by the 3[rd] respondent, both parties were summoned to enquire into the allegations. Thereafter, both parties were instructed to approach the Civil Court to settle the issue and no criminal case was registered. 11. Alleging harassment from the side of respondents 1 and 2, at the instance of respondents 3 and 4, the petitioners have not W.P.(C) No.1963 OF 2021(U) 7 approached the superior officers. None of the superior officers of respondents 1 and 2 are made parties to this writ petition. In this writ petition, the petitioners have not made out an exceptional circumstances of grave and imminent danger to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the result, the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN** **JUDGE** MIN W.P.(C) No.1963 OF 2021(U) 8 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.465/2020 OF SRO, PUTHENCRUZ IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DARTED 30.01.2020.** **EXHIBIT P2** **A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 14/02/2020.** - **EXHIBIT P3 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 24/02/2020.** **EXHIBIT P4** **A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SAID SALE DEED NO. 466/2020 OF SRO, PUTHENCRUZ IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 30/01/2020.** **EXHIBIT P5** **A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 13/05/2020.** - **EXHIBIT P6 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 24/02/2020.** **EXHIBIT P7** **A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT OF THE 3RD PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 13/05/2020.**