JAMES PAUL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd and 4th accused in CC No.308/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Moovattupuzha, arising from VC 16/2010/EKM for offences punishable under section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 211 , 294(b) , 341 , 324 read with section 34 IPC are the petitioners herein. They seek to quash the proceedings against him.

(2.) The allegation of the prosecution is that 24/11/2018 at about 8 p.m, while the complainant was driving his car, the SI of police, Model Police station Kalamassery and few other police personnel, intercepted the vehicle, on an allegation that the complainant drove the vehicle while talking on the mobile phone. In furtherance of their common intention to assault the complainant, they demanded Rs.2,000/- as bribe from the complainant. On his refusal, complainant was taken to Kalamassery police station along with his car wherein he was wrongfully confined and assaulted by the SI and police personnel including the petitioners. Two crimes were registered against him on an allegation of driving the vehicle while talking on the mobile phone and that he had attempted to escape from the custody of the police.

(3.) Thereafter, the complainant laid complaint against all the accused who are the police personnel, including the petitioners herein as MP No.2835/2008 before the court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur on 26/11/2008. The learned Special Judge forwarded the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, , with instruction to register the case and to conduct investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The case was registered. Investigating officer questioned 20 witnesses and seized two documents.The complainant, his companion in the car and other witnesses were questioned. The enquiry officer ultimately concluded that the investigation revealed that the first accused had directed the complainant to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence of attending the mobile phone during driving of the vehicle and, when he refused to pay fine, two cases were registered against him, which are now pending in trial. According to the investigating agency, allegation of demand for bribe was not proved. Hence, it was recommended to treat the case as false. The Superintendent of police has agreed with the investigating officer and suggested to treat the case as ' mistake of facts'. Further it was found that since only petty offence was laid against the complainant, there was no proper justification for taking the vehicle and the accused to the police station and for the alleged illegal detention.