Disposed

K.Senkumar v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 May 2024WP(Crl.)/12/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A panchayat secretary alleging caste abuse and wrongful restraint by Vigilance officials sought sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute them; the Government refused without hearing him or considering a Director of Panchayats report. The court set aside the refusal order and directed fresh reconsideration after hearing both sides.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P13 refusal of sanction set aside; Government to reconsider Ext.P11 application after hearing petitioner and officials, considering Ext.P15, within three months.

K.Senkumar Vs the State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 12 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

K.SENKUMAR
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. KUTTAPPAN, PALAPRA HOUSE, ATTAPPALLOM P. O.,
KUMILY, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685509.
BY ADVS.
C.S.MANILAL
S.NIDHEESH

¶7

RESPONDENT:

¶8

THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (HOME AND
VIGILANCE), SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶9

SRI.RAJESH A SPL.G.P, REKHA SR.P.P

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(CRL.) NO. 12 OF 2022

¶12

¶13

K.BABU, J.

¶14

WP(Crl.).No.12 of 2022

¶15

Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2024

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

The prayers in this WP(Crl.) are as follows:-

¶18

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P13 order and quash the same as illegal.

¶19

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to reconsider Ext-P11 request and direct the respondent to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

¶20

(iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice.”

¶21

The petitioner was working as Secretary, Kumily Grama Panchayath from 23.07.2019. He belongs to Malayaraya Community. On 09.03.2021 at about 2.30.p.m. the Vigilance and the Anti-Corruption Bureau laid a trap based on the allegation that one of the employees of the Kumily Grama Panchayath demanded bribe from one Sri.Vijayakumar for getting a favour. The Vigilance arrested Sri.Ajikumar, a Junior

¶22

Clerk on 09.03.2021 at the time of accepting bribe.

¶23

¶24

WP(CRL.) NO. 12 OF 2022

¶25

The petitioner alleges that the Vigilance team wrongfully restrained him, voluntarily caused hurt to him and abused him by calling his caste name. The relevant portion of the allegations raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is extracted below:

¶26

“3. At that juncture without any provocation and without any reason, one Thulaseedhara Kurup who was working as the ASI of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau of Kottayam unit caught hold of the collar of the shirt of petitioner and pulled him forcibily thereafter in a very angry and discorderly manner wrongfully restrained the petitioner by force and used force on him to sit along wth the said Aji Kumar. The above mentioned Thulaseedhara Kurup used criminal force by putting his left hand on the neck of the petitioner and pressed too hard causing instant suffocation and pain. He also wrongfully restrained the petitioner and intimidated followed by showering filthy and vulgar language with caste aspersion. The said Thulaseedhara Kurup is having prior knowledge that the petitioner belongs to scheduled Tribe since the father in law of the petitioner C.K.Sasidharan was retired police officer and hence knows the whereabouts of the family of the petitioner.

¶27

It is further submitted that the second officer is one vincent K.Mathew who was working as the sub Inspector of police Vigilance, while I was restrained by the first officer as already noted, and forcibly made me to sit, had criminally intimidated and threatened me by forcibly removed by mask and showeed abuses over me with filthy and vulgar language with caste aspersions. It is also submitted that Sri.Vincent K Mathew, also personally known

¶28

WP(CRL.) NO. 12 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

to the caste status of the petitioner as he worked along with the father in law of the petitioner. The above officer deliberately and provocatively photographed the picture of the petitioner who was sitting along with Ajikumar to intentionally humiliate the petitioner in public view.

¶31

It is submitted that the 3^rd officer namely Rijo P.Joseph who was working as the Circle Inspector of Vigilance also intimidated and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. He used criminal force and pulled the petitioner from the sitting posture to another chair. He also showered abuses over the petitioner and wrongfully restrained the petitioner from moving to any place.”

¶32

The petitioner filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Kottayam and to the DySP, Peerimedu alleging that the officials of the VACB committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 352, 353 and 323 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(l), 3(m), 3(r) and 3(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶33

Thereafter, the petitioner filed Exhibit P11 application before the Additional Chief Secretary, (Home & Vigilance) Department, seeking sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute the officials allegedly involved in the offences.

¶34

¶35

WP(CRL.) NO. 12 OF 2022

¶36

Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition

¶37

No.21119/2021 before this Court. As per judgment dated 06.10.2020 this Court directed the Government to consider his application seeking sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The Government considered this application and passed Exhibit P13 order refusing sanction to prosecute the police officials involved.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the competent authority in the government has not considered any of the relevant materials while passing Exhibit P13 order. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Government considered the relevant materials and found that there was no material to initiate any prosecution against the Police Officials concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegations levelled by the petitioner are substantiated by Exhibit P15 report submitted by the Director of Panchayath to the Government. The grievance of the petitioner is that no opportunity of being heard was given

¶40

WP(CRL.) NO. 12 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

to him and that the competent authority has not considered any of the materials, including Exhibit P15.

¶43

On a perusal of Exhibit P13 order, it is seen that the competent authority arrived at a conclusion that no prosecution is required as the petitioner failed to appear before the DySP, Peerumedu on 08.11.2021.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner ought to have been heard by the competent authority himself as he had raised the allegations against the DySP, Peerumedu.

¶45

Having considered the submissions on both sides and the relevant materials placed before the court, this Court is of the view that the competent authority ought to have given opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing Exhibit P13 order.

¶46

There is also specific allegation that the relevant materials including Exhibit P15 were not considered by the competent authority.

¶47

Therefore, Exhibit P13 shall stand set aside. The competent authority in the Government shall reconsider Exhibit

¶48

WP(CRL.) NO. 12 OF 2022

¶49

¶50

P11 application after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the Police Officials against whom the petitioner raised allegations. The competent authority may also take into account Exhibit P15. Both sides are at liberty to produce relevant materials before the competent authority. The competent authority in the Government shall take a decision on Exhibit 11 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶51

The Writ Petition (Crl.) is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

K.BABU, JUDGE

saap

WP(CRL.) NO. 12 OF 2022

¶56

¶57

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 12/2022

¶58

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS` `Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `TO THE SP VIGILANC`	`COMPLAINT DATED 21.03.2021` `E.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 16.03.2021.`	`DECISION OF THE PANCHAYATH`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS 8`	`IN NUMBERS.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `TO THE DISTRICT PO`	`COMPLAINT DATED 06.09.2021` `LICE CHIEF AND OTHERS.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SC ST COMMISSION T`	`NOTICE DATED 05.08.2021 OF` `O THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SC ST COMMISSION T`	`NOTICE DATED 13.08.2021 OF` `O THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `KOTTAYAM 20.05.202`	`REPORT OF DYSP VIGILANCE` `1.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF` `10.03.2021.`	`THE REMAND REPORT DATED`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF T` `COMMISSION DATED 2`	`HE ORDER OF THE SC ST` `3.09.2021.`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 24.07.2021.`	`REPORT OF THE DYSP PEERMEDE`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF` `16.08.2021.`	`THE APPLICATION DATED`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `WP(C) NO.21119/202`	`JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2021 IN` `1.`
`Exhibit P13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 27.11.2021.`	`G.O.(MS) NO.3289/2021/HOME`
`Exhibit P14`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE`	`REPORT DATED 8/3/2022.`
`Exhibit P15`	`A COPY OF THE REP` `THE ADDITIONAL CHI`	`ORT DATED 27/3/2022 GIVEN TO` `EF SECRETARY`
`Exhibit P16`	`A COPY OF THE G` `NO.1618/2022/LSGD,`	`OVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (RT)` `DTD. 6/7/2022`

¶59

//True copy//PA to Judge

K.Senkumar v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Senkumar v. the State of Kerala

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

Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasius Vs the State of Kerala

M.Amanulla Khan Vs Sajeena Vahab

Thankappan Vs State of Kerala

Bindulal V.S Vs State of Kerala

U.K.Praveen Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar @ Rameshan Vs State of Kerala