P. L. Simon v. Commissioner of Police, Thrissur & The Station House Officer, Guruvayoor Police Station

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2012/11TH ASHADHA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 10113 of 2012 (L) ---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **P.L.SIMON, PALAYUR HOUSE,CHITTATTUKARA.P.O., PAVARATTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 511.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.N.J.JOHNSON** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** **1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRISSUR,PIN-680 001.** **2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,** - **GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION,** **GURUVAYOOR.PIN-680 101.** ## **R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **sts** ## **WP(C)NO.10113/2012** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1 COPY OF THE DETAIL COMPLAINT OF THE WINNER CLUB ADDRESSED TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA ON 29/12/2011.** - **P2 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26TH MARCH 2012 ADDRESSED TO THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS AND ANNEXURES:** **ANNEX R2(A) COPY OF THE FIR DATED 26/12/2011** **ANNEX R2(B) COPY OF THE FIR DATED 06/09/2011** **ANNEX R2(C) COPY OF THE EXTRACT REGISTER OF SUMMARY TRIALS DATED 12/12/2011** ## **ANNEX R2(D) COPY OF THE FIR DATED 01/01/2012** **ANNEX R2(E) COPY OF THE REPORT OF ACP, GURUVAYOOR.** **ANNEX R2(F) COPY OF THE REPORT OF ACP,GURUVAYOOR.** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.** **-----------------------------------------------** W.P.(C)No.10113 of 2012 **----------------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of July, 2012** ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to register a case against the accused on the basis of Ext.P2 complaint and hand over a free copy of the FIR to the complainant - and proceed with the investigation through a noble and able superior police officer in the interest of justice. - (b) Issue such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner claims to be a life member of a club viz., Winner Club, Guruvayoor situate in Guruvayoor temple town. According to the petitioner, there was some high handed action by a ## W.P.(C)No.10113 of 2012 :: 2 :: police officer, Circle Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor on 25.12.2011 (wrongly stated as 25.12.2012 in the petition) in meddling with the operation of the club and intimidating its members, including the petitioner and also of causing damage to valuable property. Petitioner alleges that a key chain of his vehicle and also Rs.2,000/- from his pocket were taken by the above police officer, and on his direction another police officer detained him. A sum of Rs.1 lakh kept in his vehicle was also forcefully taken under the direction of the aforesaid officer, is the further allegation imputed. Though he had sent a complaint by registered post to the 1[st] respondent, Commissioner of Police, Thrissur, complaining of the misdeeds committed by the aforesaid police officer, no crime was registered thereof. The allegations raised in his complaint having disclosed of W.P.(C)No.10113 of 2012 :: 3 :: cognizable offences against the police officer registration of a crime and its investigation ought to have proceeded, but, that was not done is the case canvassed for seeking reliefs in the petition. 3. A statement has been filed by the 2[nd] respondent in which disputing the various allegations set out in the petition, it is contended that gambling operations were conducted without any licence in the club wherein the petitioner claims to be a member, and in a raid conducted in the premises on 25.12.2011, 16 persons engaged in gambling were arrested and a sum of more than Rs.3 lakhs in cash connected with the gambling was also seized. A crime was registered in connection with the above raid, arrest and seizure. On previous occasion also detecting gambling activities carried on in the club a crime had ## W.P.(C)No.10113 of 2012 :: 4 :: been registered, and at that point of time the accused persons proceeded against were convicted by the magistrate, submits the 1[st] respondent. Annexures R2 series are produced regarding the registration of the crime over the gambling activities carried on in the club. Ext.R2(c) is the copy of the extract register of the summary trial proceeded over the crime registered showing that the accused proceeded against were convicted accepting their plea of guilty. Petitioner and others were engaged in gambling activities in the club was arrested and cash used by them for gambling was seized, is the case of the 2[nd] respondent. What has been done by the Circle Inspector of Police in the raid over the club, arrest of the petitioner and seizure of cash used for gambling, was so performed in discharge of his official duties, and there is no merit in any of the allegations imputed by the W.P.(C)No.10113 of 2012 :: 5 :: petitioner, nor in the non-registration of an FIR on the basis of a complaint sent by him by registered post to the 1[st] respondent, according to the 2[nd] respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Balachandran v. State of Kerala {2000 (2) KLT 352} contends that where cognizable offences have been disclosed on his complaint the 1[st] respondent to whom the complaint was sent was bound to issue directions/orders to the Station House Officer concerned to register a FIR transmitting such complaint to him. Once a crime is registered under the FIR, then alone the question of exercising discretion whether it is to be investigated or not would arise for consideration and in case a conclusion is formed that an investigation is not necessary on the ground that there is no sufficient ground to do so, the Station House Officer is bound to state ## W.P.(C)No.10113 of 2012 :: 6 :: the reasons for not doing so. He has further to notify the informant the fact that he will not investigate the case. None of the procedures mandated under Section 154(1) and 157(1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure {for short “the Code”} has been followed on the complaint sent by the petitioner to the 1[st] respondent, is the submission of the counsel to contend that the non-registration of a FIR when cognizable offences are disclosed in his complaint is patently illegal, and a writ of mandamus has to be issued directing the 1[st] respondent to take action on his complaint for registering the crime and to proceed with its investigation. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor adverting to the statement filed by the 2[nd] respondent and also the annexures produced thereto contended that there is no merit in the petition, and baseless allegations are imputed W.P.(C)No.10113 of 2012 :: 7 :: against the police officer who conducted a raid in the club to set up a defence in the crime case already proceeded against him. 6. The question emerging for consideration is on the case set up by the petitioner, even assuming that he had sent a complaint to the 1[st] respondent disclosing a cognizable offence, but, no crime was registered, whether the invoking of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court is called for to issue directions to the 1[st] respondent to take steps for registration of the crime and to proceed with further steps thereof. The Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U. P. {2008 (1) KLD 423 (SC) has held that in view of the scheme set out in the Code providing alternate efficacious remedy to an aggrieved person, who has a grievance over the non-registration of a FIR by the police on his complaint disclosing a cognizable offence ## W.P.(C)No.10113 of 2012 :: 8 :: invoking of inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code or writ jurisdiction is not proper. When that be so, the decision relied by the counsel rendered by a single Judge of this court referred above cannot be given much significance. The Apex Court has held in Sakiri Vasu's case thus: “............. the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section W.P.(C)No.10113 of 2012 :: 9 :: 156(3), Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.” 7. So, if at all the petitioner has a grievance that the 1[st] respondent a superior police officer has not acted upon his complaint disclosing a cognizable offence he is not left out without any remedy. He can file a complaint before the magistrate, and it is for the magistrate to consider and pass orders whether to send over the complaint to the Station House Officer concerned to register a crime and report under Section 156(3) of the Code, or take cognizance on such complaint under Section 200 of the Code and proceed further, if so W.P.(C)No.10113 of 2012 :: 10 :: warranted. On the facts and circumstances presented in the case where it is shown that a crime has already been registered by the police alleging that gambling activities were carried on in the club and petitioner was one among those arrested as involved in such gambling, I find, exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court on the allegations set out by the petitioner cannot be resorted to. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek alternate efficacious remedies as provided under law, if so advised, for redressal of his grievance as indicate above, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- **(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE** **sk/-** ## **//true copy//**