CHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, namely, chandran, challenges an order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short 'KAAPA Act). Ext. P3 is the order. By that order, he was directed to report before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shornur for a period of six months, treating him as a 'Known Rowdy'. The Advisory Board ordered that instead of reporting before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shornur, he shall be reported before the Station House Officer, Ottapalam for a period of three months from 15/1/2024. This is questioned before this Court.

(2.) The petitioner's main contention is that he cannot be classified as 'Known Rowdy' for the reasons that the four offences relied on would not attract to characterise him as a 'Known Rowdy'. It is submitted that out of four cases, three cases are within the family and all the defacto complainants are blood relatives of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the definition of 'Known Rowdy' under Sec. 2(p) of the KAAPA Act. According to him, in none of the cases, he has been convicted and therefore, the Clause 2(p)(iii) alone would attract. As per the above Clause, there must be three separate instances for initiating action against him. It is further submitted that in the light of proviso to Sec. 2(p) of the KAPPA Act, in all the cases, thosecases involving family and close relative shall be omitted from consideration. Therefore, omitting three cases, one case alone would attract the provisions under Sec. 2(p) of the KAAPA Act to treat him as a 'Known Rowdy'. Thus, it is submitted that for a simple offence, he cannot be classified as a 'Known Rowdy'. We find that this argument is meritorious. As we have seen that all the crimes have been registered by his own brother and brother's son and these cases could not have been considered for passing an order under Sec. 2(p) of the KAAPA Act, one case alone would qualify for the purpose of initiating proceedings under the KAAPA Act.

(3.) In view of the provisions under Sec. 2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA Act there must be three separate instances, otherwise no proceeding could have been initiated against him under the KAAPA Act. Therefore, we quash the impugned order.