Kerala High Court
M.K.Sanjeev vs Sri.Loknath Behra Ips (Ker-85) on 26 February, 2021
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.1684 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 26641/2019
IN THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/11/2019 IN WP(C) 26641/2019(E) OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
M.K.SANJEEV,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O. KESAVAN,
MULACKAL HOUSE,
EAST KORATTY P.O,
CHIRANGARA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PRINCIPAL, CHAITHANYA PUBLIC SCHOOL,
CHALAKUDY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
SRI.LOKNATH BEHRA IPS (KER-85),
AGED 59 YEARS,
S/O. NOT KNOWN DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PIN - 695 010
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R1 BY SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No.1684 OF 2020
IN
WP(C). 26641/2019
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2021 The applicant has approached this Court for contempt of the order of this Court in WP(C) No.26641/2019 dated 13.11.2019, in which it was directed that Ext.P5 complaint filed by the petitioner shall be inquired into or investigated and the investigation/inquiry be completed within a period of two months.
2. The applicant has now approached this Court stating that despite an order to complete the investigation/inquiry within a period of two months, the Police have been recalcitrant and have not done anything. Hence, the indolence of the Police needs to be visited with action for contempt.
Con.Case(C).No.1684 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 26641/2019 3
3. The Police Chief Thrissur (Rural), has through the Sr. GP, filed a statement to the effect that in fact the inquiry was already completed on the date, the writ petition was taken up for consideration, but, due to some communication gap, it was not so communicated to the court. Ext.P5 petition was already disposed of and that it was consequent to that, an order was passed by this Court to complete the inquiry/investigation enquiry within a period of two months.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has also produced a copy of the file pertaining to the completion of the enquiry on 23.08.2017. And the communication was also sent to the petitioner on 24.08.2017 itself. As that fact was left out to be mentioned before the court, the Order was passed to dispose of the matter within two months. There is no failure or latches on the part of the Police authorities in complying with the directions of this Court. The learned Public Con.Case(C).No.1684 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 26641/2019 4 Prosecutor has submitted that as the writ petition was disposed of in consequence of the miscommunication to the court. If the court so deems it fit to conduct any further inquiry, the respondent is willing to comply.
5. Considering the materials which have been produced before this Court, I find that an inquiry was conducted and the applicant was also informed as seen from the despatch register. But, the applicant has not approached the criminal court of competent jurisdiction with a private complaint, because that is the remedy that is available to him. The direction to the Police was to dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner either by inquiry or investigation, there was no specific direction to register an FIR. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that immediately on receipt of the complaint, an FIR ought to have been registered.
Con.Case(C).No.1684 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 26641/2019 5
6. But in case, an FIR is not registered, the remedy open to the applicant is to approach the criminal court of competent jurisdiction and to file a complaint and the Magistrate has the option either to send it to the SHO for the investigation after registering an FIR under S.156(3) Cr.P.C or to take cognizance itself and proceed with the inquiry.
And, therefore, I find there is no contempt on the part of the respondent, and the contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON JUDGE NR/26/02/2021 Con.Case(C).No.1684 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 26641/2019 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-11-2019 IN W.P(C) NO. 26641 OF 2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.83/PTN/AP/SBTSR/R/17 DATED 23.08.2017.
ANNEXURE-R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.05.2017 IN W.P.(c) 15547/2017 ANNEXURE-R1(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DATED 19.07.2017.
ANNEXURE-R1(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 14.08.2017 OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT SPECIAL BRANCH, THRISSUR RURAL. ANNEXURE-R1(e) A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.08.2017 TO THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR, RURAL.
ANNEXURE-R1(f) A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DESPATCH REGISTER OF THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL BRANCH, THRISSUR RURAL.
ANNEXURE-R1(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF STAMP ACCOUNT REGISTER OF THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL BRANCH, THRISSUR.