Vaishak T.K And Ors vs State Of Kerala

Devan Ramachandran, J

The petitioner has approached this court alleging that he was “tortured†and abused by the 4th respondent police officer because he had

removed his face mask temporarily in a public place.

Noticing the allegations of the petitioner, we had, on 4th of May, 2021, issued the following order:

“The allegations of the petitioner in this writ petition are certainly ones which should engage the attention of the State Police Chief The petitioner

alleges that he was apprehended by certain Police officers for not wearing a mask in a public place and that he was showered with invectives and

subject to ""torture"". We do not for a moment say, at this time, that the allegations of the petitioner are true; but we are certain that if they are, then it

requires apposite reaction from the State Police Chief. We, therefore, adjourn this matter to be called on 07.05.2021, within which time, the State

Police Chief will look into Ext.P1 and inform this Court through, a proper pleading, as to the veracity of the allegations in this writ petition.

Learned Government Pleader Sri.Manuraj K.J. submitted that a statement has been filed wherein the following have been averred:-

“5. It is submitted that the Assistant Sub Inspector Mr. Varghese was in charge of the Station General Diary when the police party along with the

petitioner reached at the station. Observing the Covid-19 Protocol, no one except police officials are permitted to enter the Police Station. Accordingly,

the petitioner was also made to sit in front of the Police Station. Even if he was in police custody he tried to conceal his identity from officers.

Subsequently, a case was registered in Cr. 228/2021 u/s 269 IPC & 4(2). (a) r/w 5 of Kerala Epidemic Disease Ordinance against the petitioner on

the basis of the report submitted by the Sub Inspector who taken him in to custody. A true copy of the FIR in crime No. 228/21 of Munambam police

station is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3 (a). After verifying his proper address as referred above, he was enlarged on bail. The final

report has been produced before the Hon'ble JFCMC - Narakkal on 16.04.21 itself. The case has been taken in to file as ST no. 232/2021.

It is submitted that the Sub Inspector Mr. Unni approached the petitioner only after he came across the petitioner wandering and violated the

government direction to wear masks. Not only the petitioner but the entire people across the state are bound to follow the direction of the Government,

in view of the crisis prevailing in the country. He was doing only his duty for the sake of local public, observing all directions given from superior

officers time to time. In his report, dated 16.04.2021, he stated that, it was the petitioner who threatened him dire consequences. The Civil Police

Driver Mr. Jismon has also endorsed this claim during the investigation.

It is submitted that, the visuals from the CC TV installed in Munambam Police Station on 16.04.2021 has been preserved, pending consideration of

the Writ Petition (Civil), in the interest of justice.

It is submitted that, a complaint of the petitioner dated 18.04.2021 submitted to the State Police Chief was forwarded to the District Police Chief for

appropriate action and hence it was entrusted to the Deputy Police Superintendent, Special Branch, Ernakulam rural for urgent enquiry as the

allegations leveled by the petitioner are purely against the police. After conducting an extensive enquiry, he submitted a report on 05.05.2021, which

states that a verbal duel broke out in between the Sub Inspector and petitioner since the latter was giving contradicting identity after he was found

violating Covid protocol without wearing mask in public domain. The Sub Inspector took him to Munambam Police Station, where a criminal case was

registered against the petitioner upon the report of the SI. The Sub Inspector returned to his patrolling duty soon after submitting the report. Petitioner

was also reluctant to reveal his address to the Assistant Sub Inspector Mr. Varghese, who was in charge of the General Diary. Petitioner, who was

kept in front of the police station, started abusing police personnel's who were present there and shouting objectionable comments that ""Pinarayi's

Janamythri police are Anti People Police"". There after the police tried to contact the Owner of ""Kadaloram Resort"", employer of the petitioner, who

sent his staff as sureties to take him on bail.

It is submitted that the DySP, Special Branch in his report stated that, on the same day night in which the incident was occurred, 4 more people had

come to the resort and enquired about the petitioner. But it is not known who were the people came there. According to the employer, the petitioner is

a hot tempered man who constantly picking up quarrels with other drivers while on traveling and he was dismissed from service followed by this

incident. The enquiry report submitted by the DySP, Special Branch is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3 (b)

It is submitted that the DySP. Special Branch reported that there was only official procedures made on the part of police when taking the

petitioner in to custody for his violation of Covid-19 protocol. The Pallipuram Grama Panchayath under the jurisdiction of Munambam Police Station is

witnessing intense spreading of the disease and many areas have become containment zones. We are enforcing strict protocols only to prevent such

an unprecedented crisis, however only a few are taken to the Police Station, that too in unavoidable situations.

It is submitted that, the police officers who taken the petitioner in to custody and the officers those who were present at the station have not used

any filthy languages towards the petitioner. He was neither tortured nor physically assaulted by the police team. He had not lodged any complaint to

the superior officers until 18.04.2021 and has not sought any medical assistance till date. His allegation that 4 more people came to his resort to

enquire about him on 17.04.2021 after the conflict with the police was true. He may have been misunderstood that the people who came to the resort

was Munambam Police, more over he lost his job on account of the criminal case registered at Munambam Station. It might have prompted the

petitioner to approach the Hon'ble court against the police.

It is submitted that, the restrictions imposed in view of sudden spike in Covid - 19 cases has forced the people to remain indoors. People got

provoked violently when police asking normal questions, if any unnecessary appearance is noted. But we are keeping utmost dignity when dealing

such cases. In such situation, it is the duty of the police to ensure the well being of the people of the State and we are undertaking this in a positive

manner.

As per the direction of this Hon'ble Court on 4.5.2021, after perusing the P1 complaint and Annexure A2 report, the State Police chief found that

the complaint pertains to certain allegations against police. Therefore, the DySP, District Crime Records Bureau, Ernakulam Rural is entrusted to

conduct a discreet enquiry into the allegations of the petitioner on 5.5.2021. In the above circumstances the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to consider

this report and take appropriate steps on the petition filed by the petitioner.â€​

He thus submitted that since the State Police Chief has already initiated appropriate action as stated in paragraph 13 afore extracted, this court may

permit the said proceedings to be completed in terms of it.

Taking note of the action already taken by the State Police Chief and especially the fact that a discreet enquiry into the allegations of the petitioner

has already commenced, we deem it appropriate to dispose this writ petition, directing the said Authority to complete the same and take necessary

action against all guilty officers.

Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the State Police Chief to conduct necessary enquiry into the allegations of the petitioner, leading

to apposite action against any officer who has been found guilty of infraction of law and to complete the same, at the earliest, but not later than one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.