Disposed

Murali N.C v. Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC13 Jul 2010WP(C)/21249/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner complained of harassment and false implication by a fourth respondent and forced confession by the fifth respondent arising from criminal complaints. The Court recorded submissions regarding new crimes and allowed investigation while directing respondents not to harass the petitioner, permitting him to pursue remedies for alleged wrongs.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to harass the petitioner during lawful investigation; petitioner allowed to seek remedies against registered crimes and pursue existing complaints with authorities.

Murali N.C Vs Superintendent of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 21249 of 2010(E) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

MURALI.N.C., SON OF CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR AGED 34 YEARS, CHANDRA BHAVAN, `VIPANCHIKA', CHENDAMANGALAM POST, KOCHI-683 512.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA RURAL SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE, ALUVA.

¶13

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKKARA CIRCLE OFFICE, PARUR.

¶14

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶15

VADAKKEKKARA POLICE STATION, PARUR.

¶16

K.P.KRISHNAKURUP, VETTUVANTHARA HOUSE, KOOTUKADU, VADAKKUMPURAM POST, PARUR-683 521.

¶17

SANTHOSH KUMAR, ASI OF POLICE, VADAKKEKKARA POLICE STATION, PARUR.

¶18

GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI. T K VIPINDAS FOR R1-3.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶21

- - - - W.P.(C).No. 21249 of 2010 E

¶22

- - - - Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Joseph, J.

¶25

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶26

“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other order writ or direction directing the respondents herein to forbear from harassing the petitioner by repeatedly summoning him to the station otherwise than through due process of law.

¶27

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other order writ or direction direction the 1^st respondent to hold an enquiry under the Kerala Police Departmental Enquiry Punishment and Appeals Rules and punish the wrong doers in accordance with law, within a time frame.”

¶28

W.P.(C).No. 21249 of 2010

¶29

¶30

Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The 4^th

¶31

respondent is a BJP activist, against whom there exists numerous complaints. The 4^th respondent is at logger heads with the petitioner

¶32

and he is attempting to falsely implicate the petitioner in criminal cases.

¶33

On 30.6.2010 the 5^th respondent, along with some other policemen, came to the house of the petitioner and forcefully took the petitioner in the police jeep after pushing down the aged father of the petitioner. The 5^th respondent forcibly made the petitioner to write a confession statement admitting that he will not make any issues with the 4^th respondent. The 5^th respondent further threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. Thereafter the petitioner was released on strict and stringent conditions. He filed a petition before the District Police Complaint Authority, Kakkanad and the Director General of Police.

¶34

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that

¶35

the petitioner was included in the rowdy list earlier and subsequently

¶36

W.P.(C).No. 21249 of 2010

¶37

he was deleted from the list. After that he was involved in two crimes, Crime No. 457 of 2010 of Vadakkekkara Police Station and Crime 1062 of 2010 of N.Parur Police Station. In the light of this, there will be lawful investigation without harassment.

¶38

We record the said submission and dispose of the Writ Petition directing that while the respondents will be free to investigate the crimes in accordance with law, there will not be any harassment to the petitioner. We also make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to seek remedies against the two crimes registered, if so advised, before appropriate forum. It is open to the petitioner to pursue the complaint, which he has filed before the District Police

¶39

Complaint Authority, Kakkanad and the Director General of Police.

¶40

Judge

¶41

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C).No. 21249 of 2010

¶44

Murali N.C v. Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murali N.C v. Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usha Devi Vs the Superintendent of Police,Pathanamthi

Graceamma Thomas Vs the Commissioner of Police

Amina Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

M.M.John @ Benny Vs State of Kerala and Others

Sughathan K.V. Vs Station House Officer

Sunilkumar S. Vs the Dy.S.P Chengannur