R. S. Pradeep v. Commissioner of Police Kollam City, Kollam; Biju S. T., Station House Officer, Shakthikulangara Police Station; Rajesh, Driver CPO, Shakthikulangara Police Station; Sumathikutty W/o Late Ramachandran

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **W.P(C).No.25423 OF 2020(C)** ## **PETITIONER:** **R. S. PRADEEP AGED 50 YEARS S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN, 'KAILASAM', MEENATH CHERRY, KAVANAD P. O., KOLLAM – 691 003.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI. SHABU SREEDHARAN SMT. ANJANA G. SRI. JOBIN JOSE P. SMT. MEENU THAMPI SMT. GAYATHRI MENON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM - 691 001.** **2 BIJU S. T. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, SAKTHIKULANGARA P. O., KOLLAM - 691 581.** **3 RAJESH DRIVER CPO, SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, SAKTHIKULANGARA P. O., KOLLAM - 691 581.** **4 SUMATHIKUTTY W/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN, SUMA NIVAS, MEENATH CHERRY, KAVANAD P. O., KOLLAM - 691 003.** ## **SRI. SUNIL NATH N.B - GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-022021, THE COURT ON 25-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C).No.25423 OF 2020 **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to stop their acts of harassment and torture upon the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent to take appropriate action against respondents 2 and 3 for their acts of harassment and torture upon the petitioner. The 4[th] respondent is the mother of the petitioner. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is running business in the name and style 'R.S.Sanitories and Paints' in the building situated in property having an extent of 45 cents in Sy.No.1785 of Shakthikulangara Village. When the business flourished, the 4[th] respondent started demanding money from the petitioner. Recently, the 4[th] respondent prevented the petitioner from entering into the residential premises, by putting a new lock in the gate. When the petitioner questioned, the 4[th] respondent informed the matter to the 2[nd] respondent, who is the Station House Officer of Shakthikulangara Police Station. Under the influence of the 4[th] respondent, the 2[nd] respondent came to the place in a jeep driven by the 3[rd] respondent, who is a civil police W.P(C).No.25423 OF 2020 **3** officer, and created violence on 06.11.2020. The 2[nd] respondent threatened the petitioner by saying that he would see that the petitioner's shop is closed down forever on the ground of breaking COVID-19 protocol. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 complaint dated 10.11.2020 before the 1[st] respondent Commissioner of Police, Kollam City, alleging police harassment by respondents 2 and 3, and thereafter, moved this writ petition before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 2. On 19.11.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission notice before admission was ordered to respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the 1[st] respondent and sought time to get instructions. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 3 and 4. Notice to the 2[nd] respondent was dispensed with for the time being. 3. A statement has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, on behalf of the 1[st] respondent, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is having animosity towards the 2[nd] respondent as he strictly implemented the orders of Sectoral Magistrate, who is in-charge of Shakthikulangara Police Station limits. Owing to Covid protocol violation on 02.11.2020, the W.P(C).No.25423 OF 2020 **4** Sectoral Magistrate visited the petitioner's shop and issued a notice for closure. Pursuant to that direction, the 2[nd] respondent directed the petitioner to close the shop, which was closed down for three days. The 1[st] respondent would point out that there are several civil and criminal litigations between the petitioner and the 4[th] respondent mother. The 4[th] respondent approached Judcial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam, against petitioner, by filing M.C.No.118 of 2017 and obtained an order of protection under subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She has also obtained orders from the Musiff's Court against the petitioner. She has lodged a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam against the petitioner, seeking maintenance. She lodged two complaints against the petitioner before Shakthikulangara Police Station. Based on the complaint dated 09.11.2020, the petitioner was asked to appear before the 2[nd] respondent Station House Officer, for disposal of that complaint. But the petitioner never appeared. The 4[th] respondent used to call the Police Control Room, Kollam City, when she is having any issues with the petitioner. These phone calls are recorded in the Emergency Recorded System and W.P(C).No.25423 OF 2020 **5** sent to Shakthikulangara Police Station, through SMS. On receipt of SMS, the police party has to reach the place to address that issue, which is not police harassment, as alleged in the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the 1[st] respondent. 5. 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 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. 6. 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 W.P(C).No.25423 OF 2020 **6** 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 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. 7. 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. 8. The averments in paragraphs 1 to 8 of the writ petition is nothing but reproduction of paragraphs 1 to 8 of Ext.P3 W.P(C).No.25423 OF 2020 **7** complaint dated 10.11.2020 filed by the before the 1[st] respondent City Police Commissioner. After the alleged incident on 06.11.2020, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 complaint before the 1[st] respondent on 10.11.2020 and thereafter, filed this writ petition before this Court on 16.11.2020 alleging police harassment. 9. The specific stand taken in the statement filed on behalf of the 1[st] respondent is that, on 02.11.2020, the Sectoral Magistrate visited the petitioner's shop and issued notice for closure on account of COVID protocol violation. Pursuant to that direction issued by the Sectoral Magistrate, the 2[nd] respondent, who is the Station House Officer of Shakthikulagara Police Station, directed the petitioner to close his shop, which remained closed for three days. Though the statement filed on behalf of the 1[st] respondent is one filed on 08.02.2021, the petitioner has not chosen to file reply affidavit. 10. As can be seen from the statement filed on behalf of the 1[st] respondent, several litigations are pending between the petitioner and the 4[th] respondent, who is his mother, who has also obtained protection order from the Magistrate Court under subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Protection of Women from W.P(C).No.25423 OF 2020 **8** Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner's mother, who is a senior citizen, used to call Police Control Room when there are issues with the petitioner. These calls recorded at Emergency Recorded System are sent to Shakthikulangara Police Station through SMS. Any action taken by the police party to address those issues of a senior citizen cannot be termed as police harassment. 10. In such circumstances, the petitioner is 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** SPR W.P(C).No.25423 OF 2020 **9** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.9531/2010 DATED 24.03.2010. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 23.04.2017. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.11.2020.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.**