Allowed

R.Binu v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission

Kerala HC6 Mar 2023WP(C)/1221/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Human Rights Commission order directing disciplinary action against a police officer investigating a sub judice criminal case. The Court set aside the order, noting no investigative lapses were found and the case remained pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission directing disciplinary action against the petitioner.

R.Binu Vs Kerala State Human Rights Commission — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 1221 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

R.BINU, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, RAVEENDRA VILASAM, CHATHAKULAM P.O., PORUVAZHY VILLAGE, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM,PIN-690 520, NOW WORKING AS THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-691 523

¶10

BY ADVS. C.P.UDAYABHANU SHRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH SRI.P.U.PRATHEESH KUMAR SRI.P.R.AJAY SHRI.RASSAL JANARDHANAN A.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION 4TH FLOOR, TURBO PLUS TOWER, NEAR PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURM-695 001

¶13

3 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010

¶14

4 GANGADEVI,W/O. SUNILKUMAR, RESIDING AT AMRITAPURI, KAPPIL EAST, KRISHNAPURAM,KARTHIKAPALLY, ALAPPUZHA-690 533

¶15

SHRI.V.TEKCHAND, SENIOR G.P.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) 1221-21

..2..

JUDGMENT

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.

¶21

The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission on Ext.P2 complaint preferred by the 4^th respondent. The petitioner herein was the respondent in Ext.P2.

¶22

The brief facts leading to Ext.P3 order are that, the petitioner, who was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kayamkulam conducted investigation in Crime No.2576 of 2017 of Kayamkulam Police Station, registered on 18.10.2017, against the 4^th respondent's husband alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(D) and 451 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶23

WP(C) 1221-21

¶24

..3..

¶25

On the basis of a complaint filed by the 4^th respondent with regard to investigation, a higher officer was entrusted with the task of further investigation. In the meantime, the initial investigating officer submitted final report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While so, further investigation report in the crime was submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District C Branch, Ernakulam, under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C to refer the case as false. In the light of the refer report, the 4^th respondent filed Ext.P2 complaint before the Human Rights Commission seeking an order to take disciplinary action against the petitioner.

¶26

The Human Rights Commission got the complaint enquired into by its Chief Investigating Officer who reported that the case against the 4^th respondent's husband is false and bogus and the Commission recommended disciplinary action against the petitioner.

¶27

WP(C) 1221-21

¶28

..4..

¶29

The copy of the report of the Chief Investigating Officer was made over to the petitioner and the 4^th respondent and the petitioner submitted his explanation that the investigation was conducted bona fide and that he has not created any evidence of his own and the witness later deviated from the earlier statement which led to the refer report. By Ext.P3 order, the Human Rights Commission, on the basis of the refer report and the report of the Chief Investigating Officer, directed the Director General of Police to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. Ext.P3 order is impugned, inter alia, on the ground that the Human Rights Commission has no jurisdiction to enquire into Ext.P2 complaint in view of Clause (h) of Regulation 17 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations 2001, as the subject matter of the complaint is sub judice before the court.

¶30

The writ petition was admitted by this Court on

¶31

WP(C) 1221-21

¶32

..5..

¶33

18.01.2021 and this Court stayed the operation of Ext.P3 directing disciplinary action against the petitioner. Though notice was ordered to the 4^th respondent, there is no appearance.

¶34

When the writ petition came up for consideration on 07.02.2023, it was submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader that the Fast Track Special Court, Haripad dismissed the further investigation report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District C Branch, Ernakulam and decided to proceed with the trial of the case as per Section 173 (2) report as S.C. No.838 of 2019. The husband of the 4^th respondent filed Crl.M.C. No.3072 of 2021 to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.838 of 2019 and this Court dismissed the same by order dated 27.06.2022. Accordingly, we directed the learned Senior Government Pleader to file a statement/counter affidavit on behalf of the Director General of Police,

¶35

WP(C) 1221-21

¶36

..6..

¶37

Thiruvananthapuram, the 3^rd respondent.

¶38

The learned Senior Government Pleader has filed a memo dated 18.02.2023 producing the statement of the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Public Grievance & Legal Affairs) for and on behalf of the State Police Chief, Kerala, narrating the facts leading to the registration of crime against the 4^th respondent's husband and the filing of Crl.M.C. No.3072 of 2021. The copy of the order dated 27.06.2022 in Crl.M.C. No.3072 of 2021 is also produced along with the memo. Paragraph '17' of the said order reads thus:

¶39

“17.......Filing of further investigation report will not in anyway cancel or efface the final report filed under Section 173(2). In order to frame the charge, the trial court can very well take into account all the records including the supplementary report. Without the risk of repetition I would emphasis that

¶40

WP(C) 1221-21

¶41

..7..

¶42

Annexure-7 report under Section 173(8) will not in anyway cancel Annexure-6 the report filed under Section 173(2). While framing charge all the materials before the court can be evaluated by the trial court and can proceed with the case in accordance with law. Impugned order passed is modified to the above extent.”

¶43

The further investigation report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District C Branch, Ernakulam under Section 173 (8) was dismissed by the Fast Track Special Court, Haripad and the court decided to proceed with the trial of the case as per Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. The case against the 4^th respondent's husband is pending before the said court as S.C.No.838 of 2019. In the statement filed by the learned Senior Government Pleader, it is stated that no lapses have so far been found in the investigation conducted by the petitioner. Taking note of these facts, we are of the view that Ext.P3 order of the Human

¶44

WP(C) 1221-21

¶45

..8..

¶46

Rights Commission cannot sustain and we set aside the

¶47

same.

¶48

The writ petition is allowed.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

spc/

WP(C) 1221-21

..9..

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1221/2021

¶57

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE WRITTEN INSTRUCTION DATED 19.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA ALONG WITH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 01.01.2018 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

R.Binu v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Binu v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala Independent Farmers Association (Kifa) Vs the Union of India

Sudarsan Vs Kerala Lok Ayukta and Others

St. Luke Hospital Vs State of Kerala

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs J.Premeela

K.Gopi, Vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority

Kadavanthra Central Residence Welfare Association Vs Corporation of Kochi