Pradeepkumar K.V v. State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2014/17TH ASHADHA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 16076 of 2014 (H)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** **--------------------------** **PRADEEPKUMAR K.V, S/O.K.V.KUNHIKANNAN, R/AT. VARIKKULAM HOUSE, KOLATHUR P.O, KASARAGOD DIST.** **BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN** **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685 001.** **2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 685 001.** **3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARAGOD - 671 306.** **4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIDYANAGER POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671 121.** **5. T.B.KUNHAMU,** - **R/AT DARUSAFA, PADHUR, P.O.THEKKIL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 121.** **R1 TO R4 BY STATE ATTORNEY SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C).No. 16076 of 2014 (H)** **-------------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.413/2013 DATED 17/5/2013 BY THE KASARAGOD POLICE STATION.** **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 19/5/2013 INVOLVING THE MEMBER OF THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH ONE OF THE ACCUSED. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 30/7/2010 BY THE BEDAKAM PANCHAYATH.** **EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/6/2013 BY THE MINES AND MINERALS DEPARTMENT.** **EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT IN DESHABHIMANI DATED 17/6/2014** **EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/06/2014 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE.** **EXHIBIT P6(A): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/06/2014 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE. EXHIBIT P6(B): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13/05/2014 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------W.P.(C). No.16076 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of July, 2014 ## J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, to issue direction to respondent 1 to 4 to enquire into or take action in the representation filed in accordance with law under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was formerly working as driver of the 5[th] respondent ever since 1998 till 2011 and he had left his employment on account of personal reasons, as by that time he got a license for quarrying latrite stone and he is now self employed by quarrying latrite stones. The shift in job was not liked by the 5[th] respondent and his son. While working under the 5[th] respondent and his son, petitioner was made to undertake various responsibilities including signing of papers on behalf of the said Kunhambu and his son, the 5[th] respondent as their benami and they are congress activists w.p.c 16076/ 2014 2 and members of ruling front and influential the persons of the district. They are able to influence the police as well. The petitioner in such circumstances had to signe blank stamp papers as directed by this said Kunhambu and his son, as he was working their driver at that time. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased a property in the year 2010, by pledging gold ornaments of his wife and since she insisted the property in her name and he executed a gifting deed also. By misusing the stamp paper, got signed blank from the petitioner, the 5[th] respondent and his son got an agreement fabricated and made the petitioner to part with the property belonging to the petitioner at a place called Charal in the name of the son-in-law of the 5[th] respondent. Some loans were also taken from K.S.F.E. in his name and when the loan was closed, he wanted the 5[th] respondent to return the documents but the same was not done. He was kidnapped by the 5[th] respondent and his men and later w.p.c 16076/ 2014 3 rescued by the police and crime No.430/2013 was registered, alleging offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 364(A), 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The 5[th] respondent was the first accused in the case along with other accused persons. He was treated in the hospital for the same. Due to the influence of the accused persons, the son of the 5[th] respondent was not arrested by the police. The petitioner was summoned to the Circle Inspector’s office through Sub Inspector of Police, Bedakam, and he was directed not to proceed with the house construction. The 5[th] respondent filed O.S.No.69/2013 and obtained injunction, which was later vacated and that order was confirmed by this court in FAO 40/2014, FAO 43/2014 and FAO 116/2014. He had obtained building permit also. He is conducting the quarry operation after getting necessary permit. Under the influence of the 5[th] respondent, the Mining and Geology w.p.c 16076/ 2014 4 Department initiated proceedings against the petitioner, staying the operation of the quarry. Several cheque cases were also filed using the blank cheques obtained from the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. Now at the instance of the 5[th] respondent and on account of several complaints filed by others also as part of the 'Kubera Operation', proceedings were initiated against the 5[th] respondent, but no coercive action is initiated against them. Though he filed complaints as Ext.P6 (a) and Ext.P6(b), regarding the unlawful activities of the 5[th] respondent and his relatives and also forcibly obtaining documents from the petitioner, no action was taken. So the petitioner has no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: i. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 - 4 to take appropriate action pursuant to Ext.P6, P6(a) and P6(b) representations made by the petitioner. ii. any other appropriate writ or order or direction, as the Hon'ble Court may pleased to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. w.p.c 16076/ 2014 5 ## 3. The 4[th] respondent filed a statement, which ## reads as follows: 1. The above writ petition is filed praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate action pursuant to Ext.P6, P6(a) and 6(b) representations made by the petitioner. 2. It is respectfully submitted that Ext.P6 complaint filed before the District Police Chief, Kasaragode has been forwarded to this respondent on 13.06.2014 to conduct a confidential enquiry and to report. In compliance thereon a report has been forwarded to the District Police Chief, Kasaragode by this respondent on 26.06.2014. True copy of the report is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R4(a). The enquiry conducted revealed the fact that the petitioner herein had been working as Driver under Mr. P.U.Kunhamoo, the 5[th] respondent herein for the last several years. They together had many financial dealings. Later on due to financial disputes their relationship strained and accordingly they separated. Thereafter Pradeepkumar started a laterite stone business. Since they were living in an inimical terms, on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sri.Soman who was working along with 5[th] respondent and pursuant to the above complaint a case has been registered in Bedakom police station as Crime No.372/13 u/s. 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC and section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST PA Act against the petitioner. A counter case was registered as per the complaint lodged by the petitioner as Crime No.373/13 u/s.448, 341, 323 r/w 34 IPC against the 5[th] respondent herein. That apart another case was registered at Kasaragode police station as Crime No.413/13 u/s. 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 364(A), 307 r/w 149 IPC on the strength of a complaint filed by the petitioner against the 5[th] respondent. On 16.11.2013 on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Shanavas, son of the 5[th] respondent another case was registered in w.p.c 16076/ 2014 6 Vidyanagar police station against the petitioner herein and his wife Nisha as Crime No.686/13 u/s.120(B), 403, 420 r/w 34 IPC and the same is also under investigation. 3. It is respectfully submitted that during the enquiry conducted, it is revealed that the allegations contained in Ext.P6 petition as well as another petition filed by one Mr.Sujil Thilankery, S/o.Sukumaran, Chettiyalkandy, Alakkad, Thillankery, Mattannur, Kannur district who is the close friend of the petitioner herein on 13.06.2014 are one and the same and a case in Crime No.350/14, u/s.323, 420, 509 r/w 34 IPC & Sec. 3 r/w 17, 18(A) of Money Lenders Act was registered on 13.06.2014 against the 5[th] respondent, his son Shanavas and 4 others and the same is being investigated. Since Crime No.354/24 has already been registered against 5[th] respondent and his son on the basis of the very same allegation contained in Ext.P6, there was no need to register another crime based on the very same allegations. Therefore no separate crime has been registered on the basis of Ext.P6. Hence, the allegation that on account of the influence exerted by the 5[th] respondent, the police have not acted is false and hence denied. However the allegation that respondents 1 to 6 are not proceeding with Ext.P6 on account of the influence of the 5[th] respondent and that the police is protecting 5[th] respondent and others due political influence are also false and hence denied. In fact a detailed enquiry has been conducted on Ext.P6 and report has already been filed before the District Police Chief, Kasaragode. 4. It is respectfully submitted that since prompt action has been taken and crime is registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by a close friend of the petitioner raising the very same allegations contained in Ext.P6, the prayer of the petitioner has become infructuous and hence the above writ petition may kindly be dismissed.” ## 4. Considering the nature of relief claimed and w.p.c 16076/ 2014 7 also considering the statement filed by the 4[th] respondent, this court felt that, the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the State Attorney appearing for the official respondents dispensing with notice to the 5[th] respondent. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though no action has been taken on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, a case was registered against the 5[th] respondent and others on the basis of the complaint given by the friend of the petitioner under the provisions of the Money Lenders Act and other provisions. According to the petitioner, several documents obtained from the petitioner on blank signed papers and blank signed cheques, while he was working with him as a driver under the 5[th] respondent and his son and now cases are being filed misusing those cheques. No action was taken against the 5[th] respondent or his relatives on the basis of w.p.c 16076/ 2014 8 the complaint filed by the petitioner. So according to the counsel for the petitioner, when a cognizable offence is made out, it is for the police to register the crime and investigate and they are not entitled to conduct any enquiry on that. 6. The learned State Attorney appearing for the respondent submitted that, proper enquiry has been conducted on the complaints filed, but they found that it is false and so no action was initiated on those aspects. 7. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner was working as a driver under the 5[th] respondent earlier and there were lot of transactions conducted during that period between the petitioner/5[th] respondent and others. It is also an admitted fact that, he had left the job and thereafter started conducting laterite quarrying as an independent business. It is also seen from the documents produced that several crimes have been registered for and against the w.p.c 16076/ 2014 9 petitioner and the 5[th] respondent on the basis of the complaints given by each other. The grievance of the petitioner was that, while he was working under the 5[th] respondent, certain blank signed paper and blank signed cheques were obtained forcibly after threatening him and they are being misused and though a complaint was filed, no action was taken on that basis. It is true that in **Lalithakumary v. Government of U.P and others (ILR 2013 (4) Kerala 633)** , Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that, when a complaint is filed, disclosing a cognizable offence, the police has to register a crime and conduct investigation and filed a report before the court under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also mentioned in the same decision that, if there was inordinate delay in filing the complaint, then they can conduct a preliminary enquiry and then inform the outcome of the enquiry to the petitioner within seven days, w.p.c 16076/ 2014 10 so that they can pursue their remedy in accordance with law. In this case, it is seen from Annexure-R4(A) filed by the 4[th] respondent along with his statement that, they have conducted an enquiry and found that the allegations are false. So under the circumstances, this court is not going into the genuineness or otherwise on the allegations made in the petition or the report said to have been filed by the 4[th] respondent, on the basis of Ext.P6 series complaints filed by the petitioner, as those are all matters to be considered by the concerned court, before whom the petitioner can initiate action, if he is not satisfied with the action of the police in not registering a crime on the basis of his complaints. So, no direction can be given by this court to the respondents to register a crime, especially when they conducted an enquiry and submitted a report stating that the allegations are not true. So the remedy of the petitioner w.p.c 16076/ 2014 11 is to file appropriate complaint before the concerned court under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to redress his grievance. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE** // True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss