P.K. Ramachandran v. Commissioner of Police, Thrissur City

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **P.K. RAMACHANDRAN AGED 78 YEARS S/O KITTU, POOVATHINGAL HOUSE, ELANAD P.O., THALAPPILLY, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR** **BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SRI.HARISANKAR N UNNI SHRI.SARANGADHARAN P.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE**| |---|---| ||**THRISSUR CITY, PIN-680 020.**| |**2**|**THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,**| ||**PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 587.**| |**3**|**JANARDHANAN,**| ||**S/O KITTU, POOVATHINGAL HOUSE,**| ||**ELANAD P.O.,THALAPPILLY,**| ||**CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR-680 586.**| |**4**|**AYYAPPADAS,**| ||**S/O MADHAVAN, KALANGARA HOUSE,**| ||**NEAR RAMANCHETTI SCHOOL, VENOOR P.O.,**| ||**PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR-680 587.**| |**5**|**PRASOBH,**| ||**S/O VASU, KARIMATTATHIL HOUSE,**| ||**KUTTADAN DESOM,**| ||**PULAKKODE P.O.,**| ||**CHELAKKARA,**| ||**THRISSUR, PIN-680 586.**| W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N) 2 **6 SUNIL KUMAR, S/O BALAN, ELACHIL HOUSE, MALAMBAD DESOM, PANGARAPPILLY P.O., CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR-680 022.** **R1-2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3-6 BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA** **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI SUNIL NATH N.B-GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N) 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is a senior citizen aged 78 years, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent Commissioner of Police to grant protection from harassment at the hands of the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer, Pazhayannur Police Station. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent to afford adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner, from the hands of respondents 3 to 6. The 3[rd] respondent is the brother of the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 are his nephews. In the writ petition, it is alleged that the 3[rd] respondent and his men are not allowing the petitioner to enter into his property or to tap rubber trees and take usufructs. On 04.10.2020, at about 10.00 a.m., while the petitioner was standing in his property at Thrikkanaya to tap rubber trees, respondents 3 to 5 abused him and manhandled him. The petitioner submitted Exts.P1 and P2 complaints dated 13.10.2020 before respondents 1 and 2 seeking police protection, which was followed by Ext.P3 complaint dated 16.10.2020 before the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer. Alleging inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition, seeking the aforesaid reliefs. W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N) 4 2. On 22.10.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, notice before admission was ordered to the respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 2. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 3 to 6. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court granted an interim order directing the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer to ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioner by the party respondents. 3. Respondents 3 to 6 have filed counter affidavit, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, by contending that the petitioner is taking adornment stand against respondents 3 to 6, in order to prevent them from enjoying the fruits of the compromise recorded by this Court in FAO No.257 of 2008, based on Ext.R3(a) compromise petition. There is no threat or harassment or any illegal act against the petitioner, from the side of respondents 3 to 6. The petitioner submitted Exts.P1 to P3 complaints before respondents 1 and 2, without any bona fides, in order to harass respondents 3 to 6. 4. Along with the memo filed by the learned Government Pleader, the statement of the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer is placed on record, wherein it is stated that, based on Ext.P1, the W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N) 5 1[st] respondent directed the 2[nd] respondent to conduct inquiry in the matter. On 14.10.2020, both parties were summoned to the police station. However, the petitioner did not turn up. On 19.10.2020, the 2[nd] respondent received Ext.P3 complaint made by the petitioner. Though the petitioner was summoned to the police station, he did not turn up. As per the statement of the 2[nd] respondent, the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 is in the nature of civil dispute, regarding partition of property. There is no threat or harassment from the side of the respondents, as alleged in the writ petition. 5. On 23.03.2021, during the course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 that settlement of dispute by way of mediation can be explored and both parties shall appear before the District Mediation Centre, Thrissur, on 05.04.2021. Accordingly, both parties were directed to appear before the District Mediation Centre, Thrissur, on 05.04.2021 at 11.00 a.m. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner and also the W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N) 6 learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 would submit that the matter could not be settled in mediation. 8. The Kerala Police Act, 2011 is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the establishment, regulation, powers and duties of the Police Force in the State of Kerala and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Chapter II of the Act deals with duties and functions of Police. Section 3 of the Act deals with general duties of Police. As per Section 3, the Police, as a service functioning category among the people as part of the administrative system shall, subject to the Constitution of India and the laws enacted thereunder, strive in accordance with the law, to ensure that all persons enjoy the freedoms and rights available under the law by ensuring peace and order, integrity of the nation, security of the State and protection of human rights. Section 4 of the Act deals with functions of Police. As per Section 4, the Police Officers shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, perform the functions enumerated in clauses (a) to (s) of Section 4. As per clause (a), the Police Officers shall enforce the law impartially; and as per clause (b), the Police Officers shall protect the life, liberty, property, human rights and dignity of all persons in accordance with the law. W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N) 7 9. Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police thus; "In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, well-trained and well-disciplined force or police whom it can trust, and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice. The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants." 10. In **Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary** **[(2014) 2 SCC 532]** the Apex Court held that, one of the responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the important duties the police has to perform. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the offender to the book. The Apex Court reiterated the said principle in **Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470]** . 11. 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 W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N) 8 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 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. 12. 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 W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N) 9 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 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. 13. 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. 14. One of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition is a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent Commissioner of Police to grant protection from harassment at the hands of the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer. 15. Alleging harassment from the side of the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer, the petitioner has not chosen to file any complaint before the 1[st] respondent or any superior officers. Ext.P1 complaint made by the petitioner before the 1[st] respondent is one seeking police protection alleging threat from the side of respondents 3 to 6. In the said complaint, the petitioner has not made any allegations against the 2[nd] respondent, as to police harassment. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N) 10 this Court in **Aslam S.** , in the absence of any exceptional circumstances of grave and imminent danger made out in the writ petition, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the ground of police harassment. 16. Another relief sought for in this writ petition is a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent to afford adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner, from the hands of respondents 3 to 6. 17. The specific stand taken in the statement filed by the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer is that there is no threat or harassment to the life and property of the petitioner, from the side of respondents 3 to 6. The dispute between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 is in the nature of a civil dispute, in relation to partition of the property. 18. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 to 6 is that there is no threat or harassment against the petitioner, from the side of the said respondents. The petitioner filed Exts.P1 to P3 complaints before respondents 1 and 2, without any bona fides, in order to harass respondents 3 to 6 and to prevent them from enjoying the fruits of the compromise recorded W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N) 11 by this Court in FAO No.257 of 2008. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out the interim order of this Court dated 22.10.2020, whereby the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer is directed to ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioner by respondents 3 to 6. 20. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; (i) In case there is any threat to the life of the petitioner from the side of respondents 3 and 6 or their men, the petitioner shall approach the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer with a request for Police protection. (ii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioner, the 2[nd] respondent shall take necessary action on that request, without any delay, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. (iii) It is made clear that 2[nd] respondent shall not interfere with any civil disputes between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 6. No order as to costs. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN** **JUDGE** MIN W.P.(C) No.22539 OF 2020(N) 12 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.10.2020** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.10.2020** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.10.2020**