Kerala High Court
Anton Amjith Verithas vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2014
Author: Babu Mathew P.Joseph
Bench: Babu Mathew P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/16TH POUSHA, 1935
WP(C).No. 3846 of 2012 (E)
--------------------------------
PETITIONER:
--------------
ANTON AMJITH VERITHAS
S/O.BABY, VEZHAMBATHOTTAM HOUSE, VENMANI P.O.
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DIST`
BY ADVS. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.)
SRI.C.N.MIDHUN
SRI.GEORGE KUTTY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY HOME SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE IDUKKI
O/O.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PAINAVU P.O
IDUKKI DIST-685603
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THODUPUZHA,
THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685584
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KANJIKUZHI, O/O.THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KANJIKUZHY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.
5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KANJIKUZHI POLICE STATION, KANJIKUZHI P.O.
IDUKKI DIST-685606
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.R.RAJESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J.
------------------------------------------------
W. P. (C) No.3846 of 2012
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2014
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing Ext.P26 Rowdy History Sheet in respect of the petitioner maintained at the Kanjikuzhi Police Station and Ext.P28 proceedings of the second respondent and for other reliefs.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was some difference of opinion on a local issue between the father of the petitioner and the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjikuzhi Police Station. As an offshoot, the then Sub Inspector of Police registered a false criminal case against the father of the petitioner and one of his brothers alleging the offences under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. He further made an attempt to search the fertilizer W. P. (C) No.3846 of 2012 -2- shop run by the father of the petitioner and at his residence alleging that he had stored illicit arrack. Since it was an absolutely false story cooked up by the then Sub Inspector, the father of the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P. No.15948 of 1998. In that Original Petition, this Court passed an interim order on 28-08-1998 permitting the conduct of search, but without the association of the then Sub Inspector. Thereafter, he had registered a criminal case against the petitioner, his brother and their father. Registering false cases against the petitioner and others of his family continued by the Kanjikuzhi police quite a long time. In all the criminal cases, the petitioner was acquitted. The 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings initiated against the petitioner also had been dropped. Exts.P2 to P9 are the orders and the judgments rendered by different courts in those cases.
4. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen. Nobody in his locality has any complaints against the petitioner. Exts.P15 to P24 certificates issued by different persons and authorities would vouch for the same. But, on the strength of W. P. (C) No.3846 of 2012 -3- the false criminal cases registered, Kanjikuzhi police have opened a Rowdy History Sheet in respect of the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P26. Even though in all the cases either he was acquitted or the cases were compounded or the proceedings were dropped, the police authorities have not taken the required steps for removing the name of the petitioner from the Rowdy History Sheet. The consequence of this was very serious. In 2010, the Public Service Commission (PSC) has advised his name for appointment to the post of Driver in the Kerala Armed Police Battalion. But, the appointment was denied to him on the basis of the police verification report including the entries in the Rowdy History Sheet. Recently, he was advised by the PSC for appointment to the post of Police Constable. If the present state of affairs are continued, the fate of the present advice also may be the same. In the light of Exts.P2 to P9 orders and judgments, there is no rhyme or reason to continue the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy History Sheet maintained by the police. Learned Senior Counsel further W. P. (C) No.3846 of 2012 -4- submits that this Court has passed an interim order on 05-06-2012 directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P14 representation submitted by the petitioner for removing his name from the Rowdy History Sheet. This Court also issued certain other directions in that order in respect of the compliance of the directions for disposing of Ext.P14. But the second respondent has not considered the matter as directed by this Court. Even though the petitioner has produced several documents along with Ext.P27, they were not considered by the second respondent. Without considering the matter on merits, the second respondent granted approval to the Rowdy History Sheet in respect of the petitioner by issuing Ext.P28 order. If the second respondent has considered the matter in the light of the documents produced by the petitioner and in the light of clauses 259 and 260 of the Kerala Police Manual, he would not have passed an order like Ext.P28, submits the learned Senior Counsel. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for granting an opportunity to the petitioner to submit a W. P. (C) No.3846 of 2012 -5- detailed representation raising all his contentions before the second respondent and for a direction to the second respondent to consider and dispose of the same on merits. He further prays for permitting the petitioner to produce all the supporting materials along with such a representation.
5. This Court finds that Ext.P28 does not reflect the contentions of the petitioner and the documents relied on by him in support of his contentions. In view of this fact, Ext.P28 is liable to be quashed. Having heard both the sides, this Court is also of the considered view that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner as prayed for by the learned Senior Counsel. Since a direction is being issued in this case to the second respondent for considering the representation which will be submitted by the petitioner, this Writ Petition itself can be disposed of on that basis.
6. In the result, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a detailed representation raising all his contentions, for removing his name from the Rowdy History Sheet maintained at the Kanjikuzhi Police Station, before the W. P. (C) No.3846 of 2012 -6- second respondent within 30 days from today. The petitioner will be free to produce any documents or other evidence in support of his case before the second respondent. If such a representation is received by the second respondent, he shall consider and dispose of the same on merits in the light of the provisions contained in clauses 259 and 260 of the Kerala Police Manual as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation. The second respondent shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before disposing of that representation. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the second respondent for compliance.
This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE kns/-
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE W. P. (C) No.3846 of 2012 -7-