Kerala High Court
Jamsheed vs District Police Chief on 1 October, 2021
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 17182 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
JAMSHEED
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. UMMER, MUNDATHODU HOUSE,
TIRUR TALUK, OZHUR AMSOM,
DESOM, KORADU,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI. K. RAKESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE,
UPHILL, MALAPPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676 505.
2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676 302.
3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
TANUR POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676 302.
SRI. ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN - SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.17182 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that respondents 2 and 3 have acted with gross malafides in having taken into custody his excavator, bearing Registration No.KL-54/C-6181; along with a tipper lorry, bearing Registration No.KL-55/A-6314, from his property on 18.08.2021, without even preparing a proper mahazar. The petitioner says that this has been done by the said respondents to wreck vengeance on him because he had earlier approached this Court through W.P.C No.30144 of 2017, in which certain remarks and observations had been made by this Court against them.
2. The petitioner, therefore, prays that respondents be directed to release the aforementioned vehicles to him within a time frame to be fixed by this Court; and further that WP(C).No.17182 OF 2021 3 1st respondent be directed to take necessary action against respondents 2 and 3, having acted in excess of jurisdiction and in colourable exercise of power.
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader- Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan, however, submitted that the afore allegations of the petitioner are wholly untenable, evident from the seizure mahazar - which has now been placed on record, along with his memo dated 14.09.2021. He pointed that, as is evident from the said mahazar, when the vehicles were intercepted, its drivers ran away and keys were deliberately broken, so that it could not be removed from the site. He submitted that, therefore, the petitioner's allegations against respondents 2 and 3 are merely a bid by him to create defence against the legal proceedings now pending against him.
4. Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan further asserted that the afore is the truth because, otherwise, WP(C).No.17182 OF 2021 4 the petitioner could have approached the competent Court for release of the vehicles and to prove himself innocent. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
5. In reply, Sri.K.Rakesh - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Exts.P3 and P3(a) photographs will clearly show that vehicles were taken into custody by respondents 2 and 3 from his premises and that this is manifest because the intimation was given to the jurisdictional Geologist was given by the said Authorities only on 31.08.2021, which is more than 12 days after the alleged seizure had been made. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that this writ petition be allowed.
6. I am afraid that, I cannot find favour with the petitioner's contentions in this writ petition because this Court is not enjoined to act upon Exts.P3 and P3(a) photographs, unless its metadata had been made available before this WP(C).No.17182 OF 2021 5 Court, as per the provisions of the Information Technology Act. Obviously, in the absence of such information, I have no method of evaluating whether the photographs are genuine or otherwise.
7. That apart, as rightly stated by Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan - learned Senior Government Pleader, the petitioner's original allegation in this writ petition was that there was no mahazar, but this has been now belyed, with the same being produced on record by the respondents.
8. I am, therefore, of the firm view that petitioner must invoke apposite remedies before the competent Court; and if he is finally exonerated or the said Court finds that the allegations against respondents 2 and 3 have many merit, certainly he can seek necessary action against them under the provisions of the applicable laws. Until such time as he is able to prove himself innocent or to establish that WP(C).No.17182 OF 2021 6 the seizure of the vehicles is illegal, the prayer in this writ petition for action against respondents 2 and 3 cannot be countenanced.
In the afore circumstances, I close this writ petition, leaving the afore liberties open to the petitioner and making it clear that he can approach either this Court or such other competent Forum in the event he is able to establish his allegations against respondents 2 and 3 to be genuine.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SPR WP(C).No.17182 OF 2021 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.
230/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI DATED 11.08.2016. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE POLICE COMPLAINT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM ON 15.07.2021.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING VEHICLES AND ITS SEIZURE BY THE POLICE.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.