Kerala High Court
Praveenkumar vs Deputy Superintendent Of Police
Author: K.T.Sankaran
Bench: K.T.Sankaran, A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/7TH ASHADHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 15736 of 2016 (N)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
-------------------
PRAVEENKUMAR
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.UDHAYAKUMAR,
AMBULAKKARAVEEDU, KAVALAYOOR,
MANAMBOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.N.SUNIL JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS :
----------------------
1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.
PIN 695 101.
2. SURESH KUMAR
WORKING AS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695 306
3. MOHANDAS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (SPECIAL BRANCH)
OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KADAKKAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
PIN 695 306.
R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN
R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-06-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 15736 of 2016 (N)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
-----------------------------------
EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5.4.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE OUTPATIENT RECORD ISSUED TO THE PETITIOENR
FROM GOVERNMENT TALUK HOSPITAL AT VARKALA.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
------------------------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
K.T.SANKARAN & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.15736 of 2016 N
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2016
JUDGMENT
K.T.Sankaran, J.
The petitioner filed this Writ Petition complaining of harassment by the police in respect of a family dispute between him and his wife. It is submitted in the Writ Petition that on 13.3.2016 there occurred some altercations between the petitioner and his wife. It is alleged that on 15.3.2016, at 8 P.M., the police party headed by the second respondent, came to the house of the petitioner and informed him that he should appear before the second respondent on the next day at 8 A.M. It is stated that as directed, the petitioner went to the police station on 16.3.2016 at 9 A.M. The second respondent summoned the petitioner to his room and the petitioner was W.P.(C) No.15736/2016 2 severely assaulted. The second respondent also summoned the petitioner to the police station on 4.4.2016 and the petitioner was brutally manhandled by the second respondent. The petitioner was directed to appear on 5.4.2016 again. At that juncture, the petitioner filed a petition before the first respondent complaining about the illegal acts of respondents 2 and 3. But, no action was taken by the police so far. The petitioner went to the Taluk Hospital, Varkala, on 7.4.2016 and availed treatment as evidenced by Exhibit P2.
2. Syama, the wife of the petitioner, is working at the residence of the third respondent. The allegation is that at the instance of the third respondent, who is an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (Special Branch), the second respondent is harassing the petitioner.
W.P.(C) No.15736/2016 3
3. At the time when the Writ Petition came up for admission on 26.4.2016, the following order was passed :
"Admit. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. Issue notice to respondents 2 and 3 by special messenger at the petitioner's expense.
Call on 3.5.2016. Having regard to the averments in the Writ Petition, we deem it appropriate to direct the Director General of Police/State Police Chief to cause an enquiry to be conducted in respect of the averments and allegations in the Writ Petition. Learned Government Pleader shall for that purpose communicate a copy of the Writ Petition to the Director General Police/State Police Chief."
4. In compliance with the order dated 26.4.2016, the State Police Chief filed a report dated 2.5.2016. From the report of the State Police Chief, it is seen that on 13.3.2016, the petitioner beat his wife Syama on her face which resulted in the damage of her left eardrum. On 16.3.2016, the Sub W.P.(C) No.15736/2016 4 Inspector of Police, Kadakkavoor, summoned the petitioner and his wife to the police station. After hearing both sides, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kadakkavoor, suggested to the petitioner to pay `400/- daily to his wife and children as maintenance. The petitioner was reporting to the Police Station everyday in the evening giving an impression that he was giving the agreed sum of `400/- to his wife everyday. Later, Syama complained before the Sub Inspector of Police that her husband (Petitioner in the Writ Petition) was violating the agreement and he was irregular in payment of `400/-. The Sub Inspector of Police summoned both parties to the police station on 4.4.2016 and gave advice to them. Then the petitioner was reminded that the S.I. would proceed with the criminal case against him and the petitioner had to face the consequences. At that juncture, the petitioner assured that he would not commit default in payment of `400/- per day. On 11.3.2016, Syama W.P.(C) No.15736/2016 5 filed a complaint at the Police Head Quarters for taking action against her husband. The petition has been forwarded to the Circle Inspector of Police, Kadakkavoor. On 12.4.2016, Crime No.490 of 2016 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A and 325 I.P.C. That case is being investigated by the Sub Inspector of Police. It is stated that the investigation conducted so far revealed that the petitioner committed the offences as alleged in the petition. It is also stated that the medical records would show that the eardrum of Syama was perforated as a result of beating on 13.3.2016. The investigating officer has sought permission for arrest of the accused and the application is pending before the DPC, Thiruvananthapuram (R). The report further shows that the bonafides of the Sub Inspector is not suspected. The intention of the Sub Inspector was to settle the family disputes amicably. The State Police Chief has given his opinion that no further W.P.(C) No.15736/2016 6 action is desirable to be taken against respondents 2 and 3 who acted in good faith.
5. From the facts narrated above, it is seen that the allegation is that the petitioner committed the offence against his wife on 13.3.2016. But, Crime No.490 of 2016 was registered against the petitioner only on 12.4.2016 and that too based on a complaint filed by Syama, the wife of the petitioner, on 11.3.2016, two days before the date of incident. Later, the Sub Inspector of Police directed the petitioner to pay `400/- everyday to his wife. The Sub Inspector of Police had no such jurisdiction. The crime was registered against the petitioner only when he failed to pay `400/- per day. Till then, no crime was registered. The action of respondent No.2 may be bonafide. But, he was indulging in activities which he was not authorised to do. It is true that the Sub Inspector of Police advised the W.P.(C) No.15736/2016 7 parties to settle the disputes between them. But, it is certainly beyond his jurisdiction to issue a direction to the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of `400/- per day to his wife. That is a matter to be dealt with by the Court and not by the police. The Writ Petition was necessitated only because of the intervention of the second respondent in respect of a matter over which he had no jurisdiction. Now, it has been brought to our notice by the report of the State Police Chief that a crime was registered against the petitioner for having assaulted his wife. The Sub Inspector of Police would be entitled to investigate the case.
In the facts and circumstances, we dispose of the Writ Petition with the following directions:
(i) The Sub Inspector of Police, Kadakkavoor shall not call the petitioner to the police station for resolving W.P.(C) No.15736/2016 8 the disputes between him and his wife.
(ii) The petitioner shall not be unnecessarily asked to wait at the police station.
(iii) If the Sub Inspector of Police wishes to summon the petitioner, he shall issue a notice in writing and serve the same on the petitioner.
(iv) The police shall not interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner on the one hand and his wife on the other.
(v) This judgment would not bar the Sub Inspector of Police, Kadakkavoor to make investigation in respect of Crime No.490 of 2016.
K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE A.HARIPRASAD JUDGE csl