Kerala High Court
N.Prakash vs Shankar Jiwal Ips on 11 June, 2025
2025:KER:40458
Cont.Case © No.2481 of 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1947
CON.CASE(C) NO. 2481 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
N.PRAKASH
AGED 60 YEARS
PRAJITH VIHAR, AYINI ROAD, MARADU P.O.
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682304
BY ADV N.PRAKASH(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
RESPONDENTS:
1 SHANKAR JIWAL IPS
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
DR. RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI ROAD, MYLAPORE,
CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 600004
2 M.BALAKRISHNAN
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (STATION HOUSE OFFICER)
PULIANGUDI POLICE STATION TENKASI DISTRICT TAMILNADU,
PIN - 627855
BY ADVS.
P.NARAYANAN, SPL. G.P. TO DGP AND ADDL. P.P.
SRI.T.V.GEORGE
SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL)
2025:KER:40458
Cont.Case © No.2481 of 2024
2
SMT.LINDA GEORGE
SMT.ADORN ANNA MARTIN
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 05.06.2025, THE COURT ON 11.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:40458
Cont.Case © No.2481 of 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present contempt case has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging non-
compliance/violations of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1997 SC 610].
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was arrested on 28.07.2024 by one Police Officer deployed by the 2nd respondent and assisted by the complainant who submitted a complaint against the petitioner and his son to the 2nd respondent and other three persons. FIR was lodged by the 2nd respondent on 24.07.2024.
3. The contention of the petitioner in person is that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in paragraph 36 of D.K. Basu's case (supra), has laid down certain guidelines to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention. Paragraph 36 reads as follows:
"36. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all 2025:KER:40458 Cont.Case © No.2481 of 2024 4 cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures :
(1) xxxxx (2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest".
4. In paragraph 37, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
"37. Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering the concerned official liable for departmental action, also render him liable to be punished for contempt of court and the proceedings for contempt of Court may be instituted in any High Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter". 5. The petitioner in person submitted that neither the family of the petitioner nor the local Police i.e. Maradu Police was informed about the arrest of the petitioner. Without informing 2025:KER:40458 Cont.Case © No.2481 of 2024 5 either the wife or the son of the petitioner, arresting the petitioner and taking him to Tamilnadu, which involved a journey of 9 hours, is blatant violation of the requirement stated in clause 2 of paragraph 36 of D.K. Basu's case (supra). The respondents were duty bound to see that their subordinates do not flout the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The mental stress and strain undergone by the wife and son of the petitioner cannot be described in words. Since the petitioner was arrested from his house which is situated at Maradu in Ernakulam which is within the jurisdiction of this Court, this contempt case is filed before this Court and the same is maintainable in the light of the directions issued in paragraph 37 of D.K. Basu's case (supra).
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the 1st respondent is absolutely an unnecessary party in the proceedings, since he is not directly involved in the matter in any manner. But the 1st respondent is duty bound to see that his subordinates did not flout the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court. There is no specific overt act or involvement alleged 2025:KER:40458 Cont.Case © No.2481 of 2024 6 against the 1st respondent who is the Head of the Police in the State. Even the 1st respondent had no knowledge regarding the issue detailed by the petitioner in the contempt case regarding his arrest. In view of the aforesaid, no wilful disobedience can be attributed to the respondents herein. It is also contended that all required action initiated without any lapse. It is further contended that in case the petitioner was aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents and also with regard to his arrest, the proper remedy would have to approach the competent court making challenge to the order of arrest. Instead of filing such a petition, the petitioner has approached this Court directly.
Moreover, there is no specific direction at all to any of the respondents to act in a particular manner. Only on the basis of the general directions issued in D.K. Basu's case (supra), it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any contempt or flouted the orders passed by this Court at any point of time.
Therefore, the contempt case is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.
2025:KER:40458 Cont.Case © No.2481 of 2024 7
7. Heard both sides.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Jhareswar Prasad Paul and another v. Tarak Nath Ganguly and others [(2002) 5 SCC 352], has held that "the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced under the statute for the purpose of securing the feeling of confidence of the people in general for true and proper administration of justice in the country. The power to punish for contempt of court is a special power vested under the Constitution in the courts of record and also under the statute. The power is special and needs to be exercised with care and caution. It should be used sparingly by the courts on being satisfied regarding the true effect of contemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in mind that the court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an original or appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties. The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such 2025:KER:40458 Cont.Case © No.2481 of 2024 8 disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained".
9. In the present case, admittedly, there is no adjudication to the fact that the procedure laid down in D.K Basu's case (supra) has been followed or not and the same has not been dealt or decided by this Court in favour or against the petitioner. The petitioner straight away approached this Court alleging non-
compliance of the directions contained in D.K Basu's case. That cannot be treated as contemptuous conduct on the part of the respondents. In fact the petitioner has prayed to punish the contemnors without there being any adjudication and without ascertaining whether there is any wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents.
2025:KER:40458
Cont.Case © No.2481 of 2024
9
10. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that no such wilful disobedience has been committed by the respondents herein. As such, the contempt case itself is misconceived and it is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, finding no merits in the contempt case, the same is hereby dismissed. The rule nisi issued against the respondents is hereby discharged.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M
JUDGE
smp
2025:KER:40458
Cont.Case © No.2481 of 2024
10
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 2481/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS THREE IN NUMBER
SHOWING THE ARRIVAL OF THE POLICE OFFICER AND TWO OTHER PERSONS, THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND HIS FRIEND AND THROWING THE PETITIONER INTO THE CAR BY THE PERSONS WHO ACCOMPANIED THE POLICE OFFICER Annexure A2 The C.C.T.V. FOOTAGE FROM 8.54 P.M. TO 9.04 P.M. ON 28.7.2024.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL DATED 28.7.2024 SENT BY THE PETITIONER'S SON TO THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOCHI AND THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MARADU Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.0640 OF 2024 DATED 29.7.2024 REGISTERED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARADU POLICE STATION Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.7.2024 SENT BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S WIFE Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN D.K.BASU V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (AIR 1997 SC 610) Annexure A7 True copy of the case status of W.P.No.33916 of 2017 of Madras High Court downloaded from the web site of Madras High Court showing the names of parties Annexure A8 True copy of the order dated 14.11.2022 in W.P.No.33916 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.37619 of 2017 of the Madras High Court downloaded from the website of Madras High Court Annexure A9 True copy of the complaint submitted by me to the second respondent on 1.9.2024 Annexure A10 True copy of the mail sent by me to the second respondent on 7.9.2024 Annexure A11 True copy of the 'police summon' issued by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tenkasi District 2025:KER:40458 Cont.Case © No.2481 of 2024 11 Annexure A12 True copy of the reply dated 25.9.2024 (without the enclosures therein) sent by Advocate Balamurali K.P. to the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tenkasi Annexure A13 True copy of Crl.O.P.(MD)16706 of 2024 filed before the Madurai Bench of Honourable Madras High Court Annexure A14 True copy of the screen shot of the Whatsapp message sent from 91 87148 13683 with the name saved as 'Prajith Brother fr....' Annexure A15 True copy of the screen shot of the Whatsapp message sent from 91 87148 13683 with the name saved as 'Since 1989 Prajith ....' Annexure A16 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER SENT BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULIANGUDI POLICE STATION TO MY WIFE ON 29.7.2024 AND RECEIVED BY HER ON 31.7.2024 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R2 (a) True copy of the fake visa to New Zealand dtd 04/06/'24 given to one Manoj by the petitioner and his son Annexure R2 (b) True copy of the fake visa to New Zealand dtd 04/07/'24 given to Abisa Rani, W/o Manoj by the petitioner and his son Annexure R2 (c) True copy of the fake job offers dtd 14/06/'24 offered to Anand Ganesan in New Zealand Annexure R2 (d) True copy of the fake job offers 12/06/'24 offered to Dalin Edvin Thomas in New Zealand Annexure R2 (e) True copy of the fake ticket dtd 21/06/'24 given to Anand Ganesan Annexure R2 (f) True copy of the FIR 309/'24 dtd 24/07/'24 registered in Tamil in Puliangudi police station and its English translated version Annexure R2 (g) True copy of the said passport dated 26/07/'24 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi Annexure R2 (h) True copy of the remand report 29/07/'24 in 2025:KER:40458 Cont.Case © No.2481 of 2024 12 Tamil and its English translated version Annexure R2 (i) True copy of the remand order dtd 29/07/'24 issued from the Addl. District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivagiri Annexure R2 (j) True copy of the bail order dtd 16/08/'24 passed by the Hon'ble Judge of the Madras High Court ( Madurai Bench) in CRL OP(MD) No:
13436/'24 Annexure R2 (k) True copy of the relevant whatsapp messages sent by petitioner's son to Mr Manoj Annexure R2 (l) True copy of the newspaper report relating to the order of appearance in Malayalam, which was forwarded by the petitioner's son to the victim Annexure R2 (m) True copy of the newspaper report relating to the order of appearance in Tamil, which was forwarded by the petitioner's son to the victim