Allowed

Noushad K.E. v. Director General of Police

Kerala HC16 Mar 2011WP(C)/1767/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the writ petition partly on police harassment allegations. After noting a subsequent crime registration and assurance of investigation, the Court expressed no opinion on mala fides but issued an interim direction preventing the petitioner's compelled hospital discharge.

What did the court decide?

Interim direction issued forbidding respondents from compelling the petitioner to discharge from hospital before treatment completion.

Noushad K.E. Vs Director General of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 1767 of 2011(U)

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

------------------

¶9

NOUSHAD.K.E., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, KANHIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.MANNAM, PARAVOOR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

-----------------------

¶13

1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-5.

¶14

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL),ALUVA.682001

¶15

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVOOR. 683513

¶16

4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVOOR. 683513

¶17

5. SRI.SREEKUMARAN NAIR, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVOOR. 383513

¶18

6. SRI.SHIJAD, S/O. V.A.ASHRAF, KOKKARNIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.MANNAM, PARAVOOR. 683513

¶19

R1-4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 1767 of 2011(U)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT

¶24

EXT.P1. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.1.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT

/ TRUE COPY /

/ P.A. TO JUDGE/

**R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.1767 of 2011-U *******************************

¶29

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2011

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

BASANT, J.

¶32

Petitioner has come to this Court raising allegations of police harassment. According to the petitioner, he was being unnecessarily vexed and troubled by the 4^th respondent. The 4^th respondent is the Sub Inspector of Police, North Paravur Police Station and the 5^th respondent is the present incumbent. It is the case of the petitioner that he was physically assaulted by the 4^th respondent/5^th respondent. In pursuance of that he has lodged Ext.P1 complaint before the 1^st respondent. But no action is taken by the police authorities. The petitioner has narrated his tale of woes and prayed that appropriate directions may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to put an end to such harassment against him.

¶33

The matter has been adjourned from time to time. At long last, we note that it is reported by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents/police officials that Crime

¶34

W.P(C) No.1767 of 2011 2

¶35

No.381 of 2011 of North Paravur Police Station has been registered on the grievance raised by the petitioner. Proper investigation shall be conducted into that crime, asserts the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the police officials.

¶36

The crime having been registered and it having been assured by the learned Government Pleader that proper investigation into that crime shall be conducted by the police, we are satisfied that no further directions need be issued in this Writ Petition now. We make it clear that if there is no proper investigation, the petitioner's remedy to approach the learned Magistrate as per the dictum in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] and if not satisfied to approach this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C/Article 226 of the Constitution shall remain unfettered. The learned Government Pleader submits that according to the police officials, the petitioner is actuated not by bona fides, but by mala fide intent. We intend to express no opinion on the said assertions it having been assured to us that proper investigation shall be conducted into Crime No.381 of 2011 of North Paravur Police Station.

¶37

W.P(C) No.1767 of 2011

¶38

¶39

This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent.

¶40

The learned Government Pleader prays and though we do not think it strictly necessary, it is made clear that this judgment will not in any way fetter/restrain the powers of the Sub Inspector of Police, North Paravur Police Station to conduct regular patrolling in connection with the maintenance of law and order within his jurisdiction.

¶41

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶42

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶43

rtr/

¶44

W.P(C) No.1767 of 2011

¶45

¶46

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.1767 of 2011

¶47

********************************* Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2011

¶48

W.P(C) No.1767 of 2011

ORDER

BASANT, J.

Heard. Admitted. Notice given and the learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 to 4. The 5^th respondent is a police officer arrayed in his personal name and capacity. The learned Government Pleader prays that notice may be issued to the 5^th respondent directly. Issue notice to respondents 5 and 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is accordingly permitted to take out notice to respondents 5 and 6 by special messenger.

¶53

The grievance of the petitioner is that the police officials are compelling and coercing the petitioner, who had suffered injuries and is undergoing treatment in the hospital, to get discharged from the hospital to avoid any proceedings against the police officials. There shall, in these circumstances, be an interim direction to respondents 1 to 5 to ensure that the petitioner is not compelled in any manner to get discharged from the hospital before his treatment is complete and is discharged by the medical officer concerned.

¶54

Verify service and call on 21.01.2011.

¶55

W.P(C) No.1767 of 2011

¶56

¶57

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶58

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶59

rtr/

Noushad K.E. v. Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noushad K.E. v. Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.M.Narayanan Vs C.G.Babu

July Sumaraj Vs Director General of Police

Shalini Umesh Kumar Vs the Deputy Superitend of Police

The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corpn. Vs M/S.Kitex Garments Ltd.

E.S.I.Corporation Vs Apsara Tourist Home

Pradeep.P. Vs the Circle Inspector of Police, Haripad