Kerala High Court
Jobin Mathew vs The Superintendent Of Police on 5 March, 2014
Author: K.Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2014/24TH ASHADHA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 1322 of 2014
---------------------------
CRIME NO. 1419/2013 OF THRIKODITHANAM POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM
....
PETITIONER:
-------------------
JOBIN MATHEW, AGED 27 YEARS,
S/O.MATHEW P.T,PLAPPILLIL HOUSE, PALLICKACHIRA P O.,
PAIPAD, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL
RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THRIKODITHANAM, CHANGANACHERRY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 001.
3. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Kss
Crl.MC.No. 1322 of 2014
-----------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
---------------------------------------------
ANNEX A1:-TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT.
ANNEX A2:-TRUE COPY OF PETITION DTD 6/12/2013 FILED BEFORE THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
ANNEX A3:-TRUE COPY OF THE ACCIDENT REGISTER CUM WOUND
CERTIFICATE DTD 24/11/2013 AND COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE
POLICE COMPLAINT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM.
ANNEX.A4: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 5/3/2014 FILED BEFORE THE
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SEEKING ENQUIRY
BY CRIME BRANCH.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
-----------------------------------------------
ANNEX.R2(A): WOUND CERTIFICATE.
ANNEX.R2(B): COPY OF REPORT OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE, CHANGANASSERY.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
=================
CRL.M.C.NO.1322 OF 2014
===================
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2014
ORDER
-----------
This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the accused in crime No.1419/2013 of Thrikodithanam police station of Kottayam District for conducting proper investigation under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is a auto rickshaw driver. On 24.11.2013, while the petitioner was standing near the Thrikodithanam Forane Church and watching a quarrel between two groups of people, the second respondent with a group of policemen rushed to the spot and beat the petitioner who was not at all involved in the quarrel. When the petitioner questioned this illegal action of the second respondent, there was some push and pull happened between the policemen and himself and he was dragged to the police jeep and when the door of the jeep was closed, one policeman by name Abraham got injured and he was taken to the hospital and the other policemen again manhandled the petitioner in the jeep and also inside the police station. One ASI by name Varghese Mathai, threatened the petitioner that unless `.5000/- is paid to settle the issue, the petitioner will be sacked. The petitioner could not pay the amount and consequently a false CRL.M.C.NO.1322 OF 2014 2 case in the form of Annexure-A1 First Information Report was registered against the petitioner as crime no.1419/2013 of Thrikodithanam police station against the petitioner and one Tisho and other identifiable persons alleging offences under section 294(b), 308, 332 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner filed Annecure-A2 complaint before the District Police Superintendent in respect of this incident and according to the petitioner, no proper enquiry was conducted and if the same police conducted the enquiry, he will not get justice. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:-
1. "To direct the first respondent to take a decision on Annexure-
A2 petition filed by the petitioner.
2. To quash Annexure-A1 First Information Report".
3. On the basis of the allegations in the petition, a statement has been called for and the Circle Inspector of Police, Chenganacherry filed a statement on behalf of the second respondent which reads as follows:-
"It is respectfully submitted that I know the facts and circumstances of the case as disclosed from the investigaiton conducted by my predecessor.
1. It is submitted that the petition was filed to direct the 1st respondent to take a decision on Annexure II petition filed by the petitioner and to quash the Annexure A1 (First Information CRL.M.C.NO.1322 OF 2014 3 Report).
2. All the allegations and averments contained in the above petition except which are specifically admitted are hereby denied.
3. It is submitted that a case in Cr.1419/13 U/s.294(b), 323, 308, 34 IPC was registered at Thrickodithanam Police Station against the petitioner and 2 others for assaulting and obstructing the official duties of Sub Inspector of Police. Thrickodithanam Sri.K.L.Sajimon and Civil Police Officer Sri.Abraham.T.M on 24.11.2013 at 10.30 P.M while they were on law and order duty at St.Xavier's Church in connection with the Church festigal. The accused were gathered and engaged in a tussle when the police party arrived at the spot and asked them to disperse. But the petitioner snatched the cane from the Sub Inspector when he alighted from the vehicle and the petitioner beat him on his head with the cane which was blocked by the civil police officer Abraham and he sustained injuries on his right hand with the metal part of the cane which resulted in the injuries caused to him as per the wound certificate. The doctor has opined that the injury may be caused as alleged. The copy of the wound certificate is attached and may be marked as Annexure R2(a). The FIR was registered on the complaint of Civil Police Officer Abraham. The petitioner was removed from the crime spot and brought to the Police Staiton. Subsequently he was arrested and produced before the court and was remanded to Judicial custody.
4. The petitioner Jobin Mathew filed a petition before the district Police Chief, Kottayam which was forwarded to the Dy.Supreintendent of Police, Changanacherry for enquiry and report. The Dy.Superintendent of Police, Changanacherry submitted the report stating that the matter of petition is false and is filed in order to CRL.M.C.NO.1322 OF 2014 4 escape from the prosecution of the case registered against him, and the petition is closed. the copy of report of the Dy.Superintendent of Police, Changanacherry is attached and may be marked as Annexure R2(b).
The petitioner filed the above petition without any merit and therefore the petition may be dismissed".
4. The petitioner filed a reply statement to the same, which reads as follows:-
1. The petitioenr denies all the averments in the abovementioned statement dated 7.3.2014 except those which are specifically admitted hereunder.
2. The statement in paragraph 3 that the petitioner and 2 others assaulted and obstructed the official duties of Sub Inspector and Civl Police officer on 24.11.2013 is absolute falsehood and is denied. The alelgation that the petitioner was engaged in a tussle while the police party reached the spot and that the petitioner snatched cane from the Sub Inspector and beat him on his head with the cane which was blocked by the Civil Police officer are all stories cooked up to justify the illegal actions of the police. It is respectfully submitted that when the Police reached the spot, the actual persons who engaged in the tussle ran away and the Police began to scare and beat the local poeple standing there including the petitioner and when the petitioner questioned this illegal action, the Police severely beat the petitioner, pulled him down and dragged him into the Police vehicle and while closing the door of the vehcile, the right hand of the Civil Police Officer Abraham was injured. There are several witnesses for this actual incident. The specific contention raised by the petitioner in the CRL.M.C.NO.1322 OF 2014 5 Criminal MC that incised would on hand cannot occur due to the hitting by a cane is not answered in the statement. This means that the said contention was accepted by the Polcie and the Annexure A1 FIR is liable to be quashed for that sole reason.
3. The further specific contention raised by the petitioner that the offences under Section 308 and 332 are not constituted against the petitioner is also not answered by the Police. The FIR is registered on the alelged complaint by the Civil Police Officer Abraham and not on the complaint by the Sub Inspector from whom the petitioner is alleged to have snatched the cane and against whom the petitioner is alleged to have made an attempt to hit with cane. This itself ia ssuspicious circumstance in favour of the petitioner.
4. The enquiry conducted by the Dy SP was an empty formality.
he has not enquired regarding the incident to any independent witness present in the locality. he has simply relied on the conduct of the petitioner in keeping silence before the Doctor, Magistrate court and the jail authorities. teh silence of the petitioner was due to threat and coercion from the Police officers that in case he reveals the police atrocities to any higher ups he will be further manhandled. he apprehended further harassment from Police in case of any complaint agaisnt the police. he got sufficient courage to make the complaints before the authorities only after he was released from jail on bail. petitioner made complaints before the Police complaint authority, Kottayam, a true copy of which is produced herewith marked as Annexure A3. the said authority has not taken anya ction on that complaint. he also made complaint before the Director General of Polcie on 5.3.2014, seeking an investigaiton by the Crime branch into the matter, a true copy of which is produced herewith marked as CRL.M.C.NO.1322 OF 2014 6 Annexure A4.
5. In the above circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Honourable court may be pelased to allow the prayers in the criminal MC.
All the facts state above are true and correct".
5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in fact, the incident had not happened in the manner in which mentioned in the First Information Report and in fact he had sustained injuries on account of the wrongful act of the police and though a complaint was filed in this regard and regarding the false implication, no action was taken by the higher authorities. So the petitioner has no other remedy to approach this court.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Ext.P2 complaint was enquired by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and found that the allegations are not true and so they closed the petition.
8. It is an admitted fact that a crime was registered against the petitioner as crime no.1419/2013 of Thrikodithanam police station on the basis of the statement given by the injured alleging offences under section 294(b), 308, 332 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioner was that though he was present at the place where some incident happened, he had not CRL.M.C.NO.1322 OF 2014 7 involved in the incident and when police wanted to make him an accused in that incident, he questioned the same and at that time, there was some push and pull occurred and he was taken to police station and on the way of police station he was beaten. While closing the door of the jeep after dragged him into the jeep, one police officer sustained some injuries and police demanded some bribe to exclude him from the case. Since he was not amenable for the same, he has been falsely implicated in the case and Annexure- A1 case was registered. He was arrested and produced and after some days of remand, he was released on bail. Thereafter, he filed Annexure-A2 complaint stating these facts. According to the petitioner, no enquiry was conducted on this basis. But it is seen from the statement filed by the Circle Inspector of Police on his behalf and on behalf of the second respondent that an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Changanasserry and found that the allegations of false implication is not correct and they have further stated that since a crime was registered and it is for the court to consider the genuineness of the allegations on the basis of evidence to be adduced before the court. In the reply statement the petitioner has stated that he did not make any complaint before the Magistrate as he was threatened by the police and due to the fear he did not make the complaint.
9. However, he had also filed Annexure-3 and 4 complaints CRL.M.C.NO.1322 OF 2014 8 as well. But according to him, those things were not properly enquired by the authorities.
10. In view of the fact that there are allegations and counter allegations regarding a particular incident, this court cannot, under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure go into those allegations. If the petitioner had a case that he was beaten by the police before the registration of the crime and he has been falsely implicated in the case, then, if the police is not taking proper action, his remedy is to file a proper complaint before the concerned court regarding the incident and that court has to consider those aspects and pass appropriate orders in the complaint. So the remedy of the petitioner is to file a complaint against the excessive action of the police if any as alleged by him and seek his remedy in accordance with law.
So, with the above observations and directions, this petition is disposed of.
sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE R.AV