SONY MATHAI Vs. KERALA LOK AYUKTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against the order dtd. 31/3/2016, 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:

(2.) The original complainant is a practising Advocate and member of the Peerumedu Bar Association. The complainant had defended his client Benoy Mathew in Crime Nos.1644/2013, 1645/2013 and 1646/2013 registered at the Kumily Police Station. Benoy Mathew filed a complaint before the Lok Ayukta alleging that the police personnel in the Kumily Station had harassed him. The Lok Ayukta ordered an investigation into the allegations in the complaint and appointed an Advocate Commissioner for that purpose. As part of the enquiry, the Advocate Commissioner visited Kumily Police Station also. Being the complainant's Counsel, the 2nd respondent accompanied the Advocate Commissioner. The appellant and other policemen created an unruly scene in the police station and thereafter registered Crime No.372/2014, on the false allegation that the Advocates obstructed the policemen from carrying out their duties and destroyed public property. 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.

(3.) On receipt of notice from the Lok Ayukta, the appellant appeared and submitted an application through the Government Pleader, challenging the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta to decide the complaint. The application came to be dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this appeal.