High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of with directions

RadhaKrishnan Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO.25817 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-08-11
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is disposed of with directions: (i) the respondents shall not harass the petitioner or his family; any search of the petitioner's house or office must be conducted strictly in accordance with the CrPC; (ii) the petitioner may approach the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam with an appropriate application for interim custody of the seized items, and the court will consider the same in accordance with law.
Final Disposition
Disposed of with directions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • RadhaKrishnan Pillai

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Director General of Police
  • The Commissioner of Police, Kochi City
  • The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Police Station, Ernakulam
  • District Police Chief, Kollam
  • Station House Officer, Elamakkara Police Station, Ernakulam
  • Station House Officer, Ernakulam Central Police Station
  • Station House Officer, Kotiyam Police Station, Kundara Rd, Kottiyam, Thazhuthala, Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Balamurali K. P.
  • • M.B. Soori Shaji
  • • T. M. Renil
  • • Iqbal K.
  • • Haripriya M.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Vidya KuriaKose (Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

RadhaKrishnan Pillai, a journalist and owner of the online news channel Press Malayalam TV, challenges actions of the Kerala police in a case in which he asserts no involvement as witness or accused. He alleges illegal search and seizure of his mobile phones, laptops, and other electronic devices, conducted at his home and office, purportedly in connection with a crime not linked to him. He asserts harassment of himself and his family and seeks mandamus to return the seized items (Exhibit P2) and to prevent further harassment. He also seeks directives for framing guidelines on the manner of searches and on preserving evidence from electronic devices and personal social media accounts, arguing the need for safeguards. The Government Pleader contends that there was no harassment and that police actions were in accord with the CrPC, noting that seized materials were forwarded to the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam, where an appropriate application for release can be made. The court appears to balance the petitioner’s grievances with procedural law, ultimately disposing the petition with directions: (i) no harassment and searches to be conducted strictly under the CrPC; (ii) the petitioner may approach the Sessions Court for interim custody of seized articles, which will be considered in accordance with law.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the police conducted illegal searches and seizures at his residence and office in connection with a crime in which he had no involvement as a witness or accused. He seeks mandamus to return seized items and requests guidelines for searches and preservation of evidence from electronic devices and personal social media accounts. He also prays for protection against harassment of himself and his family, and for interim custody of the seized materials until legally disposed. He contends that higher safeguards and procedural clarity are required for digital/electronic searches.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend there was no harassment and that police actions were carried out under the CrPC framework. They indicate that the seized materials have been placed before the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam, and that the petitioner may file an appropriate application for interim custody of the seized items, which will be examined under law. The Government Pleader asserts compliance with legal procedures and urges dismissal of any broad claims of harassment, emphasizing adherence to statutory safeguards.

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 RadhaKrishnan Pillai v. State of Kerala 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 25817 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER:** RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI AGED 48 YEARS S/O. KUTTAN PILLAI, RAGAM (H), NADUVILAKKARA, UMAYANALLUR, PULLICHIRA POST, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691304 BY ADVS. BALAMURALI K.P. M.B.SOORI SHAJI T.M. RENIL IQUBAL K. HARIPRIYA.M ## **RESPONDENTS:** |1|STATE OF KERALA| |---|---| ||REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT| ||SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001| |2|THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE| ||POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014| |3|THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE| ||OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY,| ||ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001| |4|THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE| ||CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682031| |5|DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KOLLAM| ||KOLLAM CITY, KERALA, PIN - 691001| |6|THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER| ||ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, ELAMAKARA,| ||ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682026| |7|STATION HOUSE OFFICER| ||ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM CITY,| WP(C) NO.25817 OF 2023 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** KERALA, PIN - 682031 8 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOTIYAM POLICE STATION, KUNDARA RD, KOTTIYAM, THAZHUTHALA, KERALA, PIN – 691571 BY ADV. SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.25817 OF 2023 3 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------W.P.(C) No.25817 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of August, 2023** # **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers: _“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents Nos.2, 4 & 6 to handover the two mobile phones with its SIM Cards, one CPU and one Laptop seized from the petitioner as specified in Exhibit P2 search list._ _ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondent police officials to not to harass the petitioner and his family by making unnecessary and illegal searches in his home and office._ WP(C) NO.25817 OF 2023 4 _iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2[nd] respondent to frame guidelines regarding the manner of carrying out a search and/or for preservations of the evidence gathered during the said search in respect of Smartphone, electronic equipment or personal social media account._ _iv. To declare that the search and seizure conducted by the respondent Nos. 4 & 8 is illegal._ _v. Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”[SIC]_ 2. Petitioner owns and operates an online news channel namely 'Press Malayalam TV' news channel. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the police in conducting illegal search and seizure of his mobile phones and laptops in connection with a crime to which he is not at all connected in any way either as a witness or accused. It is WP(C) NO.25817 OF 2023 5 submitted that the petitioner is a journalist and he and his family members were harassed by the police in connection with the search of one Sajan Skariah who is the owner of 'Marunadan Malayali' news channel. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in this writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that there is no police harassment as alleged in this writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that the police is only acting in accordance with the provisions contemplated in the Criminal Procedure Code. The police seized certain materials from the petitioner and the same along WP(C) NO.25817 OF 2023 6 with a forwarding note is already produced before the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam and the materials were received in the file as T.No.424/2023 by the Sessions court. If that be the case, petitioner can file appropriate application before the Sessions court for releasing the materials in accordance with law. As far as the police harassment against the petitioner and his family is concerned, the submission of the Government Pleader can be recorded. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: i. The respondents shall not harass the petitioner and his family members. If any search of the petitioner's house or office is necessary, the same should be done only in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal WP(C) NO.25817 OF 2023 7 Procedure Code. ii. The petitioner is free to approach the Principal Sessions court, Ernakulam with appropriate application for interim custody of the articles seized from him and the court concerned will consider the same in accordance with law. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** WP(C) NO.25817 OF 2023 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25817/2023** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH LIST PREPARED BY SHO OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. EXHIBIT-P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 899/2023 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT-P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 899/2023 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DATED 09-062023. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
RadhaKrishnan Pillai v. State of Kerala - High Court of Kerala (2023) | Tenetowl