R.M. MURALEEDHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 23085 of 2017 is the appellant. He filed the writ petition with two prayers. The first prayer was for directing respondents 1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the conspiracy which led to his implication in Crime No.44 of 2003 of Muhamma Police Station and Crime No.313 of Mararikulam Police Station. He also sought a direction to the 1st respondent to compensate him for the injury caused on account of the illegal action of the respondents. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge, declined the reliefs sought for and gave liberty to the appellant to take recourse to the ordinary civil law against the delinquent officers responsible for the alleged registration of false cases against him. It is this judgment which is under challenge.

(2.) We heard the appellant, who appeared in person. We also heard the Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 5, Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent and the Senior Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent.

(3.) If, as stated by the appellant, the injury caused to him was on account of his being falsely implicated in criminal cases, his remedy lies before Civil Court. It was in recognition of that legal principle that the learned Single Judge gave liberty to the appellant to take recourse to ordinary civil law. Further, while moulding the aforesaid relief, the learned Single Judge also has taken into account the fact that in a writ proceeding, it is not possible to decide the disputed questions of facts which are required to be established for sustaining a claim of damages. For all these reasons, the ultimate conclusion of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted.