K.S.GOPAKUMAR Vs. STATE POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Ext.P1 order passed by the State Police Complaints Authority in O.P.No.316 of 2013, whereby the State Police Chief was directed to look into the complaint made by the 4th respondent against the petitioners who have submitted a final report incorporating charge under Section 308 I.P.C. against the 4th respondent. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioners are Police Officers in the State Police Department. At the time of complaint, 1st petitioner was working as Sub Inspector at Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta, and the 2nd petitioner was working as Circle Inspector of Police at CBCID (Economic Offence-I) at Thiruvananthapuram. The 4th respondent filed Ext.P2 complaint before the State Police Complaints Authority against the petitioners. The 1st respondent proceeded in the matter, which, according to the petitioners, without jurisdiction since there is a clear delineation of power made under Section 110(1) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, and the State Police Complaints Authority is only vested with powers to consider complaints against the Police Officers of and above the rank of Superintendent of Police, and against the officers of other rank in grave cases of sexual harassment of women in custody, death, grievous hurt, rape etc. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced is that, the jurisdiction in all other cases are conferred on the Police Complaints Authority at District level. That apart, it is submitted that, the 1st respondent denied a fair opportunity to cross-examine PW2 and to make final submissions in the matter, and therefore, Ext.P1 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and illegality. Accordingly, the recommendation made to the State Police Chief to take action against the petitioners cannot be sustained under law. It is also contended that, the entire action of the State Police Complaints Authority is violative of the basic rights and guarantees extended to the petitioners under the Constitution of India and the laws, to have a fair trial in the complaint adjudicated by the Authority.

(3.) I have heard Sri. K. Abdul Jawad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Rashmi K.M., learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.