Kerala High Court
Ramakrishnan vs The State Of Kerala on 29 October, 2019
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1941
WA.No.2080 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.36995/2017(Y) DATED 25.03.2019 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 77 YEARS
S/O.PARUKUTTY AMMA, PADAYATH HOUSE, CHAZHUR P.O.,
THRISSUR- 680571.
BY RAMAKRISHNAN,(PARTY IN PERSON)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY
(HOME DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.
2 PREMANANTHAKRISHNAN,
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTHIKKADU,
THRISSUR-680641.
BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A.ASIF
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.10.2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA. 2080/2019 2
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
S.Manikumar, C.J.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2019 made in W.P.(C) No.36995 of 2017, by which, writ court declined interference with G.O(Rt) No.2520/2017/HOME dated 26.09.2017, wherein the Government having found that there is no substance in the allegation of the writ petitioner/appellant, rejected his request for according sanction for prosecution against the Sub Inspector of Police, Sri.Premananthakrishnan, respondent No.2, under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Facts leading to the appeal are that writ petitioner has preferred Exhibit-P1 complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thrissur, under Section 190(i)(a) of the Cr.P.C alleging offences under Sections 115 and 116 of the Kerala Police Act and Sections 352 and 506(II) of the IPC. The petitioner has sought for a reference under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., for investigating into the allegations made against him or else take cognizance of the offences. Complaint has been registered as C.C. No.3995 of 2014.
3. The learned Magistrate directed the writ petitioner to secure necessary sanction in order to prosecute respondent No.2 therein. Writ WA. 2080/2019 3 petitioner has submitted Exhibit-P2 application to the Home Secretary, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram and Exhibit-P3 reminder to the said authority. Alleging inaction, the petitioner also filed W.P(C) No.886 of 2016 before this Court. Vide judgment dated 11.01.2016 made in the said writ petition, a learned Single Judge directed the 1 st respondent therein to consider the application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment. Alleging non-compliance of the judgment dated 11.01.2016, Cont. Case (C) No.2275 of 2016 has been filed.
Recording the submission that pursuant to the direction granted by this Court, hearing was scheduled on 20.01.2017 at 11.30 am, the contempt case was closed. Thereafter, Government have issued G.O(Rt) No.2520/2017/HOME dated 26.09.2017, which came to be challenged in W.P(C) No.36995 of 2017.
The Government order reads thus:
"GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Abstract Home Department - Judgment dated 11/01/2016 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.886/2016 filed by Sri.Ramakrishnan - complied with - Orders issued HOME (A) DEPARTMENT G.O(Rt) No.2520/2017/HOME Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 26/06/2017 Read: The Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala filed by Sri. Ramakrishnan in WP(C) No.886/2016 WA. 2080/2019 4 ORDER As per the judgment read above, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala directed Government to consider the request of the petitioner within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of the judgment.
2) Accordingly, Sri. Ramakrishnan was heard on 21/01/2017. the contention of the applicant was that he met out injustice from the hands of Sri. Premananda Krishnan, the then SI of Anthikkad Police Station. As part of setting the dispute with the neighbour of the petitioner, the petitioner's son in law willfully came forward and agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to petitioner's neighbour as a compensation and the SI compelled the petitioner's son-in-law to swear in the name of God to the effect that the petitioner will not proceed against the SI by filing cases.
Afterwards, the petitioner preferred case against the SI for pursuing which prosecution sanction is necessary and he represented Government accordingly and has not got the same till date.
3) Pursuant to this, Government directed the State Police Chief to furnish a detailed report in the matter. The State Police has reported that the enquiry officer, DySP, Irinjalakuda, in his enquiry report revealed that the petitioner's son in law willfully came forward and agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- to Sri.Surendran towards compensation for his dead chicken which is alleged to have been occurred due to the act of the petitioner, while discussing the matter in presence of the Ward member of the panchayat. The Sub Inspector did not raise any demand for paying fine. The SHO was merely doing the duty of establishing peace, and law and order.
4) Government have examined the matter in detail with the report and connected records and report of the State Police Chief and found that WA. 2080/2019 5 there is no substance in the allegation of the petitioner and it is also obvious that the complainant has no consistent case. Hence the representation of Sri.Ramakrishnan for according prosecution sanction to Sub Inspector of Police Sri.Premananda Krishnan under 197 Crpc cannot be acceded to and as such rejected.
5) The orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala read as first paper above is hereby complied with."
By order of the Governor L.GEETHA ADDITIONAL SECRETARY To:- The State Police Chief, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.
Sri.Ramakrishnan, Padayath House, Chazur P.O., Thrissur-680571. The Advocate General, Kerala, Ernakula, (with C/L) The Stock File/Office copy/Spare"
4. Adverting to the submissions of the party in person and learned Government Pleader and after perusal of the pleadings and documents on record, writ court vide judgment in W.P(C) No.36995 of 2017 dated 25.03.2019 at paragraphs 5 and 6 ordered thus:
"5. The issue raised by the petitioner revolves around Ext.P6 order passed by the Government declining sanction to the petitioner to prosecute the 2nd respondent. On a reading of Ext.P6 it is evident that, Government have considered the matter in detail after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The subject matter of the issue was taken into account and found that, the issue was settled by and between the parties and the 2nd respondent did not raise any demand for paying fine. It is also found that, the Station House Officer is WA. 2080/2019 6 merely doing his duty for establishing peace, and law and order. It is also WP(C).No. 36995 of 2017 6 clear from Ext.P6, Government have examined the matter in detail taking into account all the reports and connected records, and found that, there is no substance in the allegation made by the petitioner and it is also obvious that, the complainant has no consistent case. Therefore, the sanction was declined invoking the power conferred under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. In my considered view, the subject matter of consideration before the Government on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner was absolutely based on factual circumstances. On the basis of the directions issued by the Home Department, an enquiry was carried out through the Police Chief and it was found that, the allegations made by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent is not true or correct. There are no established circumstances and materials before this court to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the State Government on the application submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, in my considered view, Ext.P6 order having passed by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, assigning independent reasons, taking into account the reports submitted by the State Police Chief and other Police Officers, the State Government has attained objective satisfaction in the issue. Therefore, it cannot be said that, Ext.P6 order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and illegality, susceptible to be interfered with by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed."WA. 2080/2019 7
5. Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed on the following grounds:
"A. The Judgment of the learned Judge is wrong in law and on the facts of the case and is liable to be interfered with by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of the Appellate jurisdiction. B. The learned Single Judge erred in finding that on a reading of Exhibit P6 it is evident that the Government have considered the matter in detail whereas it is clear from what has transpired that when the matter came up for admission no order was passed and within a week's time when the matter again came up, an order had already been passed declining permission for prosecuting the 2nd respondent. This clearly shows lack of application of mind on the part of the 1st respondent.
C. The learned Single Judge ought to have found that the Government have unilaterally relied on the report of the enquiry conducted by the Deputy superintendent of Police. The Secretary has also arbitrarily failed to consider the submissions made by the appellant.
D. The learned Single Judge ought to have found that the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police is itself arbitrary and not proper. The copies of the alleged statements taken in the inquiry are not seen annexed to the knowledge of the appellant. The statements of the complainant before the Police and the son-in-law of the appellant who had allegedly effected the payment of Rs.3000/- is also not seen taken. E. The learned Single Judge erred in entering a finding that the allegations raised by the appellant as found in the reports of the police officers cannot be found fault with. The learned Single WA. 2080/2019 8 Judge ought to have found that no independent reasons apart from placing reliance on the reports of police officers have been assigned by the Government in passing Exhibit P6 Order and hence the learned Judge ought to have found that Exhibit P6 suffers from grave arbitrariness and ought to have interfered with the order by exercising the discretion in favour of the appellant."
6. On the above grounds, Mr.Ramakrishnan, party in person, made submissions. We directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the case diary and also copy of any proceedings, which prescribe any procedure to be followed by the authorities before according sanction for prosecution.
Accordingly, translated version of records pertaining to sanction and Circular No.09 of 2017 issued by the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police, Kerala regarding the procedure followed, for issuing sanction for prosecution are submitted. Circular No.09 of 2017 dated 30.05.2017 issued by the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police is reproduced hereunder:
"T3-77482/06 Police headquarters Kerala,Thiruvananthapuram Dated: 30/05/2007 Circular No.09/2007 Sub: Sanction for Prosecution - Case Diaries not to be sent to competent Authority - Sending of Report on Investigation - Instructions - Reg.WA. 2080/2019 9
In order to launch Prosecution, sanction from the competent Authority (for Prosecution) is to be obtained in cases falling within the purview of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Special Laws. Like Arms Act, Explosives Act, Explosive Substances Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, etc., and certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code like 153 A, 295 A IPC etc. The Competent Authority, may vary according to the provisions in the concerned Act, and according to the Rank/Designation of the Public Servant.
02. The Investigating Officer requests for and obtains Sanction for Prosecution from such authorities, before laying the Charge-sheet under Sec.173 Cr.PC. When , in respect of an offence, Sanction is mandatory, the competent Court cannot take cognizance of that offence without such sanction.
03. The Competent Authority accords sanction after applying his mind, evaluating the evidence collected, the facts and circumstances of the Case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a number of Rulings, has observed that the Competent Authority must go through the facts of the Case and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer with due care and diligence, and apply his mind properly, before according Sanction for Prosecution. In the event of rejecting allowing the request for such Sanction, he/she needs to record it clearly in a speaking order.
04. While requesting Sanction for prosecution, the present practice is as follows:
(a) The Investigating Officer completes the Investigation of the case;
(b) The Investigating Officer (through Superior Officers) obtains the legal opinion of APP/PP as to whether Sanction is required or not;
(c) After getting affirmation from APP/PP, the Investigating Officer sends a request to the PHQ along with the original Case Diary (CD) enclosing the opinion of the APP/PP for obtaining Sanction for Prosecution;
(d) The PHQ send all these documents including the CD, in original, to the Government, with a request to forward the documents to the Competent Authority (of the concerned Department or Ministry);
(e) In respect of the offences where Sanction is required from the District Magistrate, the matter is taken up by the SP/CP CBCID directly.
5. In the past, some instances of loss of original Case Diaries have been reported. There is also a possibility of the contents of the Case WA. 2080/2019 10 Diaries being leaked out, or important papers being removed, which could be detrimental to the prosecution. The CD is a privileged document, and apart from the Investigating Officer and his Superior Officers exercising the power of supervision under Section 36CrPC, only the Court has the power to peruse the CD. Considering all the above issues it has been decided that the original Case Diaries need not be sent to any authority during the process of obtaining Sanction for Prosecution, unless expressly so directed by the Director General of Police in any particular Case.
06 Considering the above aspects, it is hereby ordered that the following procedure will be adopted by all concerned:-
(a) Investigating Officer when he comes to know that Sanction for Prosecution will be required, will ascertain, as part of his investigation, the designation of the Competent Authority to accord sanction for prosecution. He shall record this as a 'fact' the Case Diary.
(b) After completing the Investigation, the Investigating Officer shall discuss the case with APP/PP and obtain his written legal opinion, specifically, on the evidence collected, and the need to go in for Sanction for Prosecution. In case the APP/PP advises that more evidence be collected, the Investigating Officer shall take appropriate steps and again approach the APP/PP.
(c) The Investigating Officer shall prepare a "Report on Investigation" (ROI) in the format attached as Annexure-I to this Circular, which gives the details on Investigation & the synopsis of evidence both Oral, Documentary & Material along with facts & circumstances. It is expedient to give he gist of the statement of the accused (wherever recorded) and the possible Line of Defence & the arguments to counter such Line of Defence. The Investigating Officer will also prepare a Memorandum of Evidence as per as Annexure-II.
(d) The Investigating Officer shall attach self-certified copies of the following documents to the "Report On Investigation"
(ROI).
(i) FIR
(ii) Opinion of APP/PP
(iii) Opinion of the Expert WA. 2080/2019 11
(e) This Report should be forwarded by the Investigating Officer to SP/CP in duplicate through the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (who will record his views) with a request to obtain Sanction for Prosecution from the competent Authority (to be specified by the Investigating Officer).
(f) After obtaining the Report on Investigation, the SP/CP may approach the concerned District Magistrate (if he/she is the Competent Authority) or send it to PHQ (if the Competent Authority is some one other than the District Magistrate) through Range DIG and Zonal IG (in the N/c of AIG (PG) for taking further action. The SP/CP, concerned must record his views clearly and then only send them to PHQ. The Range DIG and Zonal IG may also record their views, if they so desire.
(g) After the Report on Investigation, in duplicate, along with enclosures as stated above is received, the PHQ will process the matter, obtain legal advice if required, before sending it to the Home Department to approach the Competent Authority.
(h) In the event, the Competent Authority desires a discussion with the Investigating Officer before according Sanction for Prosecution, the Investigating Officer shall meet such Competent Authority" to explain or to clarify & during the discussion, he can carry the Case Diary for reference.
However the Investigating Officer shall obtain prior permission of SP/CP before proceeding for such discussion and shall record this in the CD.
08. The CB CID Units will also ensure that no original Case Diary files are sent to the Government and the District Magistrates for obtaining sanction for prosecution in any Case unless expressly permitted / ordered by the ADGP Crimes. The ADGP Crimes will issue suitable instructions in this regard to all CB CID Units.
Director General of Police & Inspector General of Police, Kerala To (1) All Officers in List B with a request to explain their contentions to all the Subordinate Officers working under them.
(2) Stock File"
WA. 2080/2019 127. Allegation of the writ petitioner in the complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thrissur under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C is that he lodged a complaint before the Anthikkad Police Station in the year May, 2012 about chicken, destroying agricultural produces. Chickens were owned by his neighbour Mr.Surendran, Chakkaramakkal House, Chazhur P.O. On 22.08.2012, the Sub Inspector of Police, respondent No.2, came to the petitioner's house along with seven police men. The petitioner asked respondent No.2, the reason for coming to his house. Respondent No.2 told the petitioner that he had received a complaint regard killing of ten chickens owned by his neighbour Mr.Surendran and that is why, he came to his house to enquire about the incident.
8. Writ petitioner in the complaint submitted before the learned Magistrate has further averred that he was threatened by respondent No.2.
He has also stated that the Sub Inspector of Police had asked him to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to Mr. Surendran, otherwise, he will take the case on file and spoil his name. At this time, the Sub Inspector of Police asked the son-
in-law of the petitioner to come to the petitioner's house. According to the petitioner, the Sub Inspector of Police threatened the petitioner that :- (a) petitioner shall not go to any court, (b) if the petitioner goes to the Hon'ble High Court, he will make the offence as non-bailable, and (c) if the petitioner WA. 2080/2019 13 does not give Rs.3,000/-, he knows how to handle him. Apprehending action, on the next day, son-in-law of the petitioner went to the Anthikkad Police Station and gave the money. The Sub Inspector of Police did not gave any receipt for the money received. Thus, the Sub Inspector has committed offences under Sections 115 and 116 of the Kerala Police Act and Section 352 and 506(II) of the IPC.
9. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No.886 of 2016 dated 11.01.2016, the writ petitioner has been heard on 21.01.2017. During enquiry, the petitioner submitted that at the instance of Sri.Premananthakrishnan, the Sub Inspector of Police, respondent No.2, injustice was done to him. Towards settlement of the alleged dispute, son-in-
law of the petitioner was compelled to pay Rs.3,000/- to his neighbour Mr.Surendran. State Police Chief directed a detailed report. Accordingly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Irinjalakuda has submitted that a report stating that the petitioner's son-in-law has willfully come forward and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for the dead chicken, which is alleged to have been occurred due to the act of the writ petitioner, while discussing the matter in the presence of ward member of the Panchayat. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Irinjalakuda has further reported that the Sub Inspector of Police did not raise any demand to pay any fine. The Station WA. 2080/2019 14 House Officer was merely doing his duty in establishing peace, law and order.
After perusing the prosecution records and report of the State Police Chief, Government held that there is no substance in the allegation of the writ petitioner and observed that complainant has no consistent case. Holding so, Government have passed G.O(Rt.) No.2520/2017/HOME dated 26.09.2017, against which, W.P(C) No.36995 of 2017 has been filed.
10. We have already extracted the judgment of writ court in W.P(C) No.36995 of 2017 dated 25.03.2019 dismissing the prayer sought for by the writ petitioner.
11. Before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thrissur, the writ petitioner has stated that his son-in-law himself had went to Anthikkad Police Station and gave the money. As per the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Irinjalakuda, son-in-law of the petitioner paid Rs.3,000/- to Mr.Surendran and settled the dispute and it is not correct that the Sub Inspector of Police has imposed the fine upon the petitioner.
12. From the file pertaining to sanction for prosecution, it could be deduced that before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Irinjalakuda, writ petitioner has given it in writing that the Sub Inspector of Police ordered him to give Rs.3,000/- to Mr. Surendran, which a judicial officer alone can do. He WA. 2080/2019 15 refused to give the amount. Hence, the Sub Inspector of Police called the writ petitioner's son-in-law and after his arrival, insisted the son-in-law to pay fine, put upon him. Before the enquiry officer, he has also stated that the Sub Inspector of Police has directed his son-in-law to take an Oath that "in the name of God, he would not file a case against him". It is the further contention of the petitioner that fine was imposed by the Sub Inspector of Police as if he was a Magistrate. From the above statement before the enquiry officer, viz., the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Irinjalakuda, it could be deduced that for the first time, writ petitioner has stated that the Sub Inspector of Police has imposed a fine upon him and directed his son-in-law to take Oath. At this juncture, it could be seen that the petitioner's son-in-law has not chosen to prefer complaint. After considering the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the District Police Chief, Thrissur (Rural) vide letter dated 25.5.2017 observed that this is not a fit case to grant sanction for prosecution. For brevity, letter dated 25.05.2017, stated supra, is extracted below:
"From District Police Chief THRISSUR RURAL To State Police Chief, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.WA. 2080/2019 16
Sir, Sub: Request of Sri.Ramakrishnan, thrissur for Prosecution sanction against Sri.Premananthakrishnan, SI, Anthikkad PS-report forwarding of - Reg Ref : 1) PHQ letter NO.U2-6905/17/PHQ dtd 20.3.17 Kind attention is invited to the subject and reference cited.
As directed vide reference cited, specific remarks in connection with request of Sri.Ramakrishnan for prosecution sanction against Sri.Premanantha Krishnan former SI of Anthikad P.S is furnished below for favour of information and further necessary action.
Sri.Premananda Krishnan was the SHO of Anthikad Police Station during the period from 26.11.2011 till 2.11.13. While he was holding charge of SHO, on 22.8.12, he was informed by one Sri.Surendran, Karamakkal House, Chazhoor regarding the poison killing of about 30 chicks by their neighbour Ramakrishnan, S/o. Parukutty Amma, Padayath House, Chazhoor. The matter was discussed and resolved in the presence of Panchayath ward member Sri.Suresh Ottakalil in the village itself on 23.8.12.
Later Ramakrishnan filed a petition before the Honourable Chief Minister of Kerala stating that Sub Inspector Premanandha Krishnan "forcefully imposed fine for an amount of Rs.3000/- from him". This petition was enquired by Sri.P.A.Varghese, former Deputy Superintendent of Police, Irinjalakuda. On WA. 2080/2019 17 enquiry of the petition matter it was revealed that Ramakrishnan's son in law, willfully came forward and agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- to Surendran as compensation while discussing of the matter in presence of ward Member Suresh Ottakalil. SHO Premanandha Krishnan did not raise any demand for paying any fine. Ramakrishnan gave a signed statement to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Irinjalakuda that he has approached the court in this matter. Hence an enquiry report stating that the allegations raised by the complainant Ramakrishnan were baseless was submitted to Honourable Chief Minister of Kerala through proper channel by the then deputy superintendent of Police, Irinjalakuda Sri.P.A.Varghese.
During the year 2013 Sri.Ramakrishnan filed Crl.M.P.No.5167/13 before JFCM No.II, Thrissur for taking legal action against Sri.Premananthakrishnan stating that the SHO, anthikad has assaulted Sri.Ramakrishnan. The Hon'ble JFCM Court ordered took cognizance of the same U/S 352, 506(1) IPC against Sri.Premananthakrishnan. On 20.2.17 this was transferred to Hon'ble JFCM Court Thrissur vide CC No.3994/14. The Hon'ble JFCM Court No.III directed the complainant Ramakrishnan to produce prosecution sanction from the Govt.
In this case there is nothing wrong with Sri.Premanandakrishnan the then SHO Anthikad. As an SHO he was merely doing his duty of establishing peace, law and order. It was the son in law of Ramakrishnan who voluntarily offered WA. 2080/2019 18 money for the amicable settlement of the issue. I have conducted an enquiry on this matter through ASP Irinjalakuda and recorded the statement of the son-in-law, Sri.Parameswaran (Ravi), S/o. Parameswaran Nair, Madathil Vettil, Thaikkattusseri, Ollur. He has stated that there was no assault or use of force against Sri.Ramakrishnan. The statement and connected previous reports are enclosed here with.
It is pertinent to note that the contents of the petition submitted by Sri.Ramakrishnan to the Hon'ble chief Minister in that petition main allegation is leveled against the SHO WAS THAT HE IMPOSED FINE OF RS.3000/- as compensation. But the allegation leveled against the SHO IN THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT is nothing but assault. From the above aspect it is obvious that the complainant has no consistent case at all.
In the above circumstances my considered opinion is that this is not a fit case to grant sanction for prosecution.
Yours faithfully Sd/-
N Vijayakumar IPC District Police Chief"
13. Even from the reading of the material on record, it could be deduced that allegation of the writ petitioner against the 2 nd respondent, Sub WA. 2080/2019 19 Inspector of Police, that a fine amount of Rs.3,000/- was imposed on the writ petitioner and that due to threat by the Sub Inspector of Police, his son-in-law came forward to pay the amount of Rs.3,000/- has not been substantiated.
Thus, the District Police Chief, Thrissur (Rural) while sending a letter dated 25.05.2017 to the State Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram, has opined that this is not a fit case to grant sanction for prosecution. Accordingly, Government have issued G.O(Rt) No.2520/2017/HOME dated 26.09.2017, stated supra.
14. On the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no error in the judgment of writ court, declining to quash Exhibit-P6 dated 26.09.2017 issued by the Government. As rightly observed, State have correctly applied the principle of objective satisfaction to the issue, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. Contention to the contra, that there is arbitrariness in the decision of the Government;
statement recorded in the enquiry, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Irinjalakuda, not considered properly, that there is no independent application of mind by the State, while considering the petitioner's application for sanction, cannot be countenanced. Moreover, as observed in the foregoing paragraph, son-in-law of the petitioner has not lodged any complaint before WA. 2080/2019 20 the higher officials of police department or chosen to prefer any private complaint. No strong evidence or materials have been placed before this Court, to find fault with the respondents. Facts averred have not been substantiated.
We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
S.Manikumar, Chief Justice Sd/-
C.K.Abdul Rehim, Judge krj