High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2011-03-16Partly Allowed

Noushad K.E. v. Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram-5 and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 1767 of 2011(U)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. BASANT
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judgment Date: 2011-03-16
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is partly allowed. It is directed that Crime No.381/2011 be investigated properly; if the investigation is unsatisfactory, the petitioner may seek relief under Sakiri Vasu and, if still aggrieved, under Article 226/482 Cr.P.C. Interim directions were issued directing respondents 1–5 to ensure that the petitioner is not discharged from hospital before his treatment is complete. The Court clarifies that its judgment does not fetter the police’s power to patrol and maintain order.
Final Disposition: Partly Allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Noushad.K.E.

Respondents

Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram-5
Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aluva
Circle Inspector of Police, North Paravur
Sub Inspector of Police, North Paravur
Sri Sreekumaran Nair, Sub Inspector of Police, North Paravur
Sri Shijad, S/O V.A. Ashraf, Kokkarnipparambil House, P.O. Mannam, Paravoor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.K.P.Mujeeb

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.T.K.Vipindas

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner Noushad K.E. approaches the Kerala High Court seeking relief under Article 226 on grounds of police harassment and alleged assault by police personnel in North Paravur. The petition asserts that the 4th respondent (Sub Inspector, North Paravur) and the 5th respondent assaulted him and that Ext.P1, a representation dated 15 January 2011, has not elicited action from the police authorities. After repeated adjournments, the court notes that Crime No.381 of 2011 at North Paravur Police Station has been registered and that the Government Pleader assures proper investigation will be conducted. The court observes that no further directions are required at this stage, but clarifies that if the investigation is not proper, the petitioner may rely on the dictum in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P (2008 AIR SCW 309) to approach the Magistrate under the Cr.P.C. or Article 226/482 Cr.P.C. The petition is partly allowed to the extent that interim measures direct the respondents 1–5 to ensure the petitioner is not forced to discharge from hospital before treatment is completed, and the court reserves further action depending on the investigation’s outcome. The court explicitly states that its judgment will not restrict the police from regular patrolling for law and order. The judgment was delivered on 16 March 2011 by a Division Bench comprising R. Basant and K. Surendra Mohan.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaSection 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P (2008 AIR SCW 309)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he has been subjected to police harassment and that Ext.P1 (a representation dated 15.01.2011) was not acted upon. He seeks protection from further harassment and a direction for a proper investigation into Crime No.381/2011. He relies on Article 226 of the Constitution and asserts that failure to investigate or act would violate his fundamental rights, warranting judicial intervention. He requests interim relief and a prompt, fair investigation, with a remedy under Sakiri Vasu if necessary.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that a crime (No.381/2011) has been registered and is under investigation. The Government Pleader asserts that the petitioner’s allegations of mala fide are denied and that investigation will address the grievance. The respondents emphasize that the writ petition seeks relief beyond what is required by the ongoing investigation, and that routine police powers and patrolling must be preserved. Notices to respondents 5 and 6 are discussed, and it is stated that the existing process should progress without unnecessary interference.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P	AIR 2008 SCW 309	Positive	The court cites the Sakiri Vasu dictum to validate the remedy of approaching the Magistrate or High Court if investigation is not satisfactory, thereby guiding future recourse.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Noushad K.E. v. Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram-5 and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT &** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932** **WP(C).No. 1767 of 2011(U)** **-------------------------** **PETITIONER:** - **------------------** **NOUSHAD.K.E., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, KANHIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.MANNAM, PARAVOOR.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **-----------------------** **1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-5.** ## **2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL),ALUVA.682001** **3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVOOR. 683513** **4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVOOR. 683513** **5. SRI.SREEKUMARAN NAIR, SUB INSPECTOR** **OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVOOR. 383513** **6. SRI.SHIJAD, S/O. V.A.ASHRAF, KOKKARNIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.MANNAM, PARAVOOR. 683513** **R1-4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 1767 of 2011(U)** **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **----------------** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT** **-------------------------------------** **EXT.P1. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.1.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT** **/ TRUE COPY /** **/ P.A. TO JUDGE/** ## **VK** ## **R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.1767 of 2011-U ******************************* Dated this the 16[th] day of March, 2011 ## **JUDGMENT** ## BASANT, J. Petitioner has come to this Court raising allegations of police harassment. According to the petitioner, he was being unnecessarily vexed and troubled by the 4[th] respondent. The 4[th] respondent is the Sub Inspector of Police, North Paravur Police Station and the 5[th] respondent is the present incumbent. It is the case of the petitioner that he was physically assaulted by the 4[th] respondent/5[th] respondent. In pursuance of that he has lodged Ext.P1 complaint before the 1[st] respondent. But no action is taken by the police authorities. The petitioner has narrated his tale of woes and prayed that appropriate directions may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to put an end to such harassment against him. 2. The matter has been adjourned from time to time. At long last, we note that it is reported by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents/police officials that Crime **W.P(C) No.1767 of 2011** 2 No.381 of 2011 of North Paravur Police Station has been registered on the grievance raised by the petitioner. Proper investigation shall be conducted into that crime, asserts the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the police officials. 3. The crime having been registered and it having been assured by the learned Government Pleader that proper investigation into that crime shall be conducted by the police, we are satisfied that no further directions need be issued in this Writ Petition now. We make it clear that if there is no proper investigation, the petitioner's remedy to approach the learned Magistrate as per the dictum in **Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P** **[2008 AIR SCW 309]** and if not satisfied to approach this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C/Article 226 of the Constitution shall remain unfettered. The learned Government Pleader submits that according to the police officials, the petitioner is actuated not by bona fides, but by mala fide intent. We intend to express no opinion on the said assertions it having been assured to us that proper investigation shall be conducted into Crime No.381 of 2011 of North Paravur Police Station. **W.P(C) No.1767 of 2011** 3 4. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. 5. The learned Government Pleader prays and though we do not think it strictly necessary, it is made clear that this judgment will not in any way fetter/restrain the powers of the Sub Inspector of Police, North Paravur Police Station to conduct regular patrolling in connection with the maintenance of law and order within his jurisdiction. **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** **(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)** rtr/ **W.P(C) No.1767 of 2011** 4 ## **R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.** *************************** ## **W.P(C) No.1767 of 2011** ********************************* Dated this the 18[th] day of January, 2011 **W.P(C) No.1767 of 2011** 5 ## **ORDER** ## BASANT, J. Heard. Admitted. Notice given and the learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 to 4. The 5[th] respondent is a police officer arrayed in his personal name and capacity. The learned Government Pleader prays that notice may be issued to the 5[th] respondent directly. Issue notice to respondents 5 and 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is accordingly permitted to take out notice to respondents 5 and 6 by special messenger. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the police officials are compelling and coercing the petitioner, who had suffered injuries and is undergoing treatment in the hospital, to get discharged from the hospital to avoid any proceedings against the police officials. There shall, in these circumstances, be an interim direction to respondents 1 to 5 to ensure that the petitioner is not compelled in any manner to get discharged from the hospital before his treatment is complete and is discharged by the medical officer concerned. 3. Verify service and call on 21.01.2011. **W.P(C) No.1767 of 2011** 6 **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** **(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)** rtr/