This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to conduct proper investigation in respect of complaint made by him against the police officers under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
2. It is alleged in the petition that there were two criminal cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending against one Suresh before the 44th and 63rd Metropolitan Magistrates Court, Mumbai and petitioner as power of attorney holder of the complainant obtained production warrant from the 44th Metropolitan Magistrates Court, Mumbai and he informed the same to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha. The wife and relatives of the accused Suresh approached the petitioner and the settlement was arrived at and the amounts were handed over by way of cash and cheque on the same day of execution of the settlement agreement. The complainant approached the Metropolitan Magistrate at Mumbai for withdrawal of the cases. But, the learned magistrate refused to allow the same without procuring the presence of the accused before that court. When this was informed to the relatives, they wanted the money back and threatened the petitioner. So, he approached the police for protection from physical assault and threat to life from the relatives of the said Suresh. He was taken to police station and he was man- handled and forced to execute certain documents and he was illegally confined till he repaid the amount and returned the cheque leaves. So, he made complaint to the second respondent, but no action was taken in this regard. So, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:
“To issue writ of mandamus and other appropriate writ or order and direct the 2nd respondent to take necessary action on Ext.P2.”
3. Though earlier, the second respondent filed a statement stating that there is nothing found unnatural in effecting the settlement, but he found some irregularities in the station records and on the part of the police officials in dealing with the matter and he filed a report in this regard before the higher ups. Thereafter, as directed by this court, the second respondent filed another statement which reads as follows:
“The above Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner for taking necessary action on the complaint filed before the 2nd respondent (Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural). It is submitted that the petitioner filed the said complaint before the 2nd respondent on 22.02.2014 and the same was entrusted with Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perumbavoor for enquiry vide Endt.No.D1(a)/9261/2014 E dated 25.02.2014.
The gist of the case is that the petitioner is a partner of Falgoon Corporation and the power of Attorney holder of another partner of the Falgoon Corporation Devendra J Shah. Sri.Devendra J.Shah has filed 2 complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against Sureshkumar, S/o. Sivarama Pillai, Ushasree House, Mattom North, Kannamangalam village, Thattaramangalam, Mavelikara, Alappuzha and another persons named Sunilkumar, which are pending as CC 280/SS/08 at 44th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Andheri, Mumbai and CC No.224/SS/08 at 63rd Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Andheri, Mumbai. The Mumbai Court has issued production warrant in the case against Sureshkumar. In the meantime the accused Sureshkumar was in judicial custody in connection with some other cases and was in the Sub Jail, Muvattupuzha.
On 20.02.2014, when the production warrant was produced before the Superintendent of Sub Jail, Muvattupuzha and matter was informed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha, by the petitioner. One of the relative of Sureshkumar approached the petitioner for settlement of the disputes and they offered to give Rs.13,00,000/- to the petitioner. An agreement of settlement was prepared and signed in the presence of the advocates of both parties. As per the agreement, the relatives of Sureshkumar agreed to give Rs.6,25,000/- to petitioner's Mumbai office and also to pay Rs.4,75,000/- in cash to the petitioner along with a cheque for Rs.2,00,000/-. The relatives of Sureshkumar had handed over an amount of Rs.4,75,000/- and a cheque for Rs.2 lakhs. They had given Rs.5,90,000/- to the Mumbai office through a relative of Sureshkumar an also a gold chain as security for the remaining amount, but the gold chain was returned to the relative of the Sureshkumar when they promised to pay the amount on 21.02.2014 and wanted the petitioner to withdraw the case. Then the petitioner contacted the Mumbai office of the petitioner's business concern, he came to know that learned Metropolitan Magistrate refused to permit the complainant to withdraw the case before producing the accused, before that court. When this fact was intimated to the relatives of Sureshmumar, they demanded the return of the amount and cheque and threatened the petitioner. Under these circumstances, petitioner approached the police for protection from the relatives of Sri.Suresh, Sunil and Sri.Kalathi Gopalakrishna Pillai, a retired Deputy Commissioner of Police. Sri. Kalathil Gopalakrishna Pillai, influenced the Muvattupuzha police and the petitioner was taken to Muvattupuzha police station from the court premises. After his arrival, the Dy. Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police, Muvattupuzha came there and they tortured the petitioner along with Sub Inspector of Police from 5 PM to 12 midnight of 20.02.2014 and wrongfully confined him in front of the lock up after removing all the dress except the underwear and they threatened the petitioner that if he does not return the money and cheque, the police will foist cheating case and rape case and also a case for outraging modesty of a woman against the petitioner and they also removed the shirt, gold chain, watch and valuable articles of the petitioner. Under threat, petitioner returned the amount and the cheque. Settlement agreement was not returned to the petitioner by the police and also the copy of the power of attorney. The wife of Sureshkumar issued a receipt of Rs.4,75,000/- and the cheque of Rs.2,00,000/-.
It is submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perumbavoor has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of me on 19.03.2014 in which the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Perumbavoor found that there are grave improprieties in maintaining the station records and degrading treatment by the Station House Officer. I also found that the allegations in the petition is purely some monetary transactions between the parties which is pending before the concerned courts and there is no conclusive evidence found so far to substantiate the allegations raised by the petitioner.
However, since the matter alleged in the petition is cognizable to register the case in this regard and subsequently a case in Crime 786/14 u/s 143, 147, 109, 341, 323, 294(b), 506(i) r/w 149 IPC registered in Muvattupuzha Police Station and the same was transferred to Crime Branch CID HHW-II, Ernakulam vide order No.D2/41630/14 dated 27.04.2014 for investigation. It is further submitted that on the basis of the allegations contained in the petition, Sri.T.A.Younis and Sri.T.S.Sivakumar who were the then Inspector of Police and S.I. Of Police, Muvattupuzha respectively, suspended from service, under pending detailed departmental enquiry vide order No.A2(a)/4060/2014 KOR dated 19.05.2014 by the Inspector General of Police, Kochi Range.”
4. It is seen from the further statement filed by the second respondent, the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aluva that on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner, Crime No.786/14 under Sections 143, 147,109, 341, 323, 294(b), 506(i) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code was registered in Muvattupuzha Police Station and the same was transferred to Crime Branch CID HHW-II, Ernakulam vide order No.D2/41630/14 dated 27.04.2014 for investigation and two police officers who were in connection with the incident were put under suspension pending enquiry. When this was pointed out to the Counsel for the petitioner, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that a crime has been registered and it was made over to Crime Branch for investigation, no further direction is required and that can be recorded and the petition can be disposed of. Accordingly, the above statement of the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aluva dated 16.06.2014 that a crime was registered and investigation was handed over to Crime Branch CID HHW-II, Ernakulam and the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner to record the same and dispose of the case are recorded and the petition is disposed of accordingly with liberty for the petitioner to approach appropriate forum later if he is not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge