BALACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This M.C. is filed by the petitioner to direct the 2nd respondent, Director General of Police to take necessary action and to direct his subordinates to take all action contemplated under law against the Superintendent of Police, Palakkad for his criminal acts committed against the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is a Police Constable with General No. 4317 in KAP-II Battalion now under suspension. According to the petitioner, on 27-1-2000 after his duty at Puthoor Matha Amrithananda Mayi Madam while he was proceeding to meet his uncle near the civil station in a bus some unfortunate incident happened. It is alleged that the petitioner has molested a women travelling in the bus, though according to him, he accidentally happened to touch the body of that woman. According to the petitioner, she got wild, raised hue and cry and tried to assault the petitioner and she got out of the bus and raised alarm. The constable who was on duty there, caught hold of the petitioner and took him to the Police Station. The petitioner has alleged that while he was in the Police Station and being interrogated by the S.I. of Police, the Superintendent of Police, Palakkad came to the Station and without caring to understand what was going on, began to beat the petitioner shouting at him and when the Superintendent of Police ascertained the caste of the petitioner, he insulted the petitioner by calling his caste name and abusing him in public view and beat him with a lathi taken from the Station and pushed him against the wall whereby his head dashed against the wall. Thereafter he was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Palakkad and remanded to custody. While in custody in the sub jail he was sent to the hospital for treatment and while undergoing treatment in the hospital the S.I. of Police, Palakkad Town South Police Station recorded his statement on 28-1-2000, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-I along with this petition. It is contended by the petitioner that even though the S.I. of Police, Town Police Station who is the S.H.O. is bound to register a crime under S. 154 of the Cr. P.C. on receipt of the information of a cognizable offence and proceed further, no crime is registered by him on the basis of the F.I. Statement given by the petitioner. It is further contended that though the petitioner made representations before the superior authorities, no action is taken in the matter. Therefore, he has filed this M.C. before this Court under S. 482 of the Cr. P.C. for necessary directions.

(3.) The State Prosecutor who appeared for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner who is a Police Constable has molested a woman traveller in the bus in which he was travelling and when she raised hue and cry, he attempted to escape by stopping the bus and a Police Constable chased him and apprehended him and brought before the Police Station. A case has been registered against the petitioner for the offences committed by him and he was arrested and produced before the concerned Magistrate who remanded him to custody. He further submitted that the petitioner who had no complaint of any torture or assault or even any misbehaviour by any of the police officials including the Superintendent of Police when he was produced before the Magistrate, by way of an after thought after he was remanded to custody by the Magistrate, made an absolutely false, frivolous and scandalous complaint against his very high ranking superior officer. He has also submitted that after the S.I. of Police recorded the F.I. Statement given by the petitioner, the D.I.G. is conducting an enquiry in the matter and on completing the enquiry if he found necessary to register the crime on the basis of the F.I. Statement crime will be registered and investigation will be conducted on the basis of the F.I. Statement given by the petitioner.