The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta rejecting the government plea challenging jurisdiction. The judgment held that criminal aspects, including false implication in an FIR, fall under judicial powers, not the Lok Ayukta.
The impugned order dated 31.03.2016 and the Ext. P4 order and Ext. P1 complaint were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J.DESAI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 19TH ASWINA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 24658 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:
SONY MATHAI
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA TRAFFIC, ERNAKULAM,
RESIDING AT MANIMALA HOUSE, ANAVIRATTY PO, IRUTTUKANAM,
IDUKKI DISTRICT
BY ADV SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA LOK AYUKTHA REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 6950332 JAI JAMES ITTIKKAL VEEDU MUNDAKKAYAM, MUNDAKKAYAM PO, ERUMELY, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM 686513BY ADVS.
SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM
SMT.RENU. D.P., SC, LOK AYUKTA
SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 24658 OF 2016
JUDGMENT
A.J.DESAI, C.J.
The challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated 31.03.2016, passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta, rejecting an application filed by the Government Pleader on behalf of the appellant, a public servant working as Sub Inspector of Police, Kumily Police Station, Idukki district, arrayed as the first respondent in the complaint. The application was filed questioning the maintainability of a complaint filed by one Jai James, the second respondent herein, before the Lok Ayukta, requesting to take action against the appellant for falsely arraying the complainant as an accused in an FIR. The case put forth by the original complainant before the Lok Ayukta is as under:
WP(C) NO. 24658 OF 2016
-3-
WP(C) NO. 24658 OF 2016
Even though the 1st respondent was not originally arrayed as accused, his name was incorporated before submitting the FIR in court after two days. Hence, the complaint was filed, alleging that the action of the appellant amounted to maladministration.
WP(C) NO. 24658 OF 2016
-5-
competent court can decide whether the allegations made by the complainant about the false implication are true or not. He further submitted that, under Section 8 (1)(a) read with Clause (b) of II Schedule of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act,1999, the action was undertaken by the Investigating Officer relating to the crime and, therefore, Lok Ayukta has no power to examine this aspect. He, therefore, would submit that the impugned order as well as the complaint filed by the respondent Advocate be quashed and set aside.
WP(C) NO. 24658 OF 2016
-6-
8 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999. He would, therefore, submit that the writ petition be dismissed.
“8. Matters not subject to investigation.- (1) Except
as hereinafter provided the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-
Lok Ayukta shall not conduct any investigation under
WP(C) NO. 24658 OF 2016
-7-
this Act, in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action, if such action relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule.”
(a) Action Taken For The Purpose Of Investigating Crime Relating To The Security Of The State.
(b) action taken in the exercise of powers in relation
to determining whether a matter shall go to a court or not.
(c) administrative action taken in matters which arise out of the terms of a contract governing purely commercial relations of the administration with customers or suppliers except where the complainant alleges harassment or gross delay in meeting contractual obligation.
(d) action taken in respect of appointment, removal, pay, discipline, superannuation or other matters
WP(C) NO. 24658 OF 2016
-8-
relating to conditions of service of public servants
but, not including actions relating to claims for pension, gratuity, provident fund or to any claims which arises on retirement, removal or termination of service.
(e) grant of honours and awards.
WP(C) NO. 24658 OF 2016
-9-
the investigating officer to determine whether the matter shall go to court or not. The allegations regarding delay in the FIR reaching the court and inclusion of the complainant as an accused are matters for the competent court to decide.
For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and Ext. P4 order and Ext. P1 complaint are quashed. It is made clear that the second respondent is at liberty to approach the appropriate court/forum for redressal of his grievance.
Sd/-
A.J.DESAI
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
uu
11.10.2023
WP(C) NO. 24658 OF 2016
-10-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24658/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT IN COMPLAINT NO. 565/2015
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT BY THE
PETITIONER IN COMPLAINT NO. 564/15
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2016
IN COMPLAINT NO. 564/2015 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Kerala Lok Ayukta has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging false implication of a public servant in an FIR.
Whether the Lok Ayukta is competent to examine allegations that police personnel falsely arrayed a citizen as an accused.
Whether actions taken by an Investigating Officer in registering an FIR and f exempling a person to court fall outside the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta under Section 8.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaApplied¶18
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SONY MATHAI
KERALA LOK AYUKTHA
JAI JAMES
MR. A.J. DESAI
MR.V.G.ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court